Case law

Jiménez-González v. Alvarez-Rubio

683 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 8, 2010

The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials from civil suits as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The second “clearly established” step of the qualified immunity analysis has two aspects. Id. One aspect focuses on “the clarity of the law at the time of the alleged civil rights violation.” Id.

Wright v. Butts

953 F. Supp. 1352 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1996

The state defendants contend that, in their individual capacities, they are immune from damages under the well-established doctrine of qualified immunity. … Instead, the question in this case, as in all qualified immunity cases, is fact specific: in May 1991, was it clearly established in this circuit that it was unconstitutional for a mental institution to fail to supervise

Ross v. State of Alabama

15 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 22, 1998

Pleading with specificity is particularly important where, as here, a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, and the court must decide whether the conduct complained of violates a “clearly established” constitutional … As Defendants correctly note, the Supreme Court has stated that, “[ujnless the plaintiff's allegation states a claim of violation of a clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Bowser v. Blair County Children and Youth Services

346 F. Supp. 2d 788 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 18, 2004

The Third Circuit has discussed qualified immunity in the following manner and terms: A right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes only if “[t]he contours of the right” are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable … In determining whether qualified immunity is applicable, the Court must first determine for the purposes of the motion if, in fact, a constitutional right was violated, and second, if that right was “clearly established”

In re Roberts Litigation

97 F. Supp. 3d 1239 · District Court, D. Montana · Mar 19, 2015

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier v. … A two-part process for analyzing the application of qualified immunity is established in Saticier. The initial inquiry focuses on whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. Id.

Estrada ex rel. Estate of Estrada v. Cook

166 F. Supp. 3d 1230 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 16, 2015

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established … are entitled to qualified immunity.”

Jasinski v. Glencoe Department of Public Safety

836 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 2, 2011

In determining whether a public official is protected by qualified immunity, I consider “whether a constitutional right has been violated,” and “whether the right was clearly established at the time the official acted.” … The defendants did not argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

Clark v. Bridges

211 F. Supp. 3d 731 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 30, 2016

As the Magistrate Judge deftly explains, qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damage suits as long as the conduct in question does not “violate clearly established … In determining whether qualified immunity applies here/the Court must determine: (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right; and, (2) whether that right was clearly established at

Massie v. Cobb County

255 F. Supp. 3d 1302 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jun 1, 2017

Accordingly, even if Gallimore’s conduct did violate Massie’s Fourth Amendment rights, that, violation did not run afoul of clearly established law, and Gallimore is entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v. … In' response, Massie argues in a cursory fashion that “the record in this case clearly establishes that ... Gallimore acted with actual malice.” [44] at 19. ...

Adkins v. City of New York

143 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2015

An official is entitled to immunity if “his action was ‘objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’ ” Taravella v. … The defense of qualified immunity extends to supervisory liability claims. See Poe v.

Sledd v. Lindsay

864 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 30, 1994

It is a well settled tenet that under the judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials ... from damages unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.

Preast v. McGill

65 F. Supp. 2d 395 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 10, 1999

clearly established at the time of the incident, and (3) evaluate whether a reasonable [official] would have understood that the conduct at issue violated the clearly established right.” … Qualified immunity shields Deputy Gainer “from suits for damages if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [Preast’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information” ’ Deputy Gainer possessed

Hlad Ex Rel. Shipley v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

305 F. Supp. 2d 830 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Feb 27, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under the qualified immunity doctrine, “government officials who perform discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if the qualified immunity doctrine applies to Defendant Carter, he has not established that he is entitled to application of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Johnson v. City of Detroit

944 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 30, 1996

Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity shielding them from civil liability under section 1983 if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly, the officer defendants cannot claim qualified immunity for their conduct on April 11, 1994 on the grounds that the right asserted in Johnson’s complaint is not clearly established.

Dowling v. Hannigan

995 F. Supp. 1188 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 30, 1998

Defendant asserts that he is also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields defendant from pecuniary lability unless he violated “clearly established” constitutional or statutory norms. … Summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity is therefore inappropriate. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Lt.

Anthony v. Burkhart

28 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 1998

For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government … Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the federal "rights” allegedly violated were “clearly established.” Barts v.

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Mann v. Palmerton Area School District

189 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 2, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs can establish their state-created danger claim, Coach Walkowiak is entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing whether the coach was entitled to qualified immunity, the Third Circuit explained that although district court opinions “may be relevant to the determination of when a right was clearly established for qualified

Burkett v. City of El Paso

513 F. Supp. 2d 800 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 14, 2007

When defendants claim qualified immunity, a court must first determine whether the plaintiffs have alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Williams v. … to qualified immunity.

Houghton v. Culver

452 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 21, 2006

Qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil damages liability insofar as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,’ Harlow … We further conclude that Lynch has not established that he is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on any of Curry’s claims”); Thomas v.