Case law

Calia v. Werholtz

426 F. Supp. 2d 1210 · District Court, D. Kansas · Apr 12, 2006

personal capacity, they are protected by qualified immunity. … such as qualified immunity. 41 Upon a defendant’s assertion of a qualified immunity defense in a summary judgment motion, plaintiff has a two-part burden.

Harris v. Adams

410 F. Supp. 2d 707 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 20, 2005

First, in determining whéther a constitutional right is clearly established, the court must first look to decisions of the U.S. … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity and thus protected from liability under § 1983 for his actions if his conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

Washington v. St. Albans Police Department

30 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. Vermont · Oct 27, 1998

Alternatively, Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … A defense of qualified immunity is established if “(a) the defendants’ action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Spencer v. Roche

755 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant VHS contends that its nurse employees are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that it cannot be liable under a theory of vicarious or supervisory liability for actions that are … Defendants Roche and Morris do not assert qualified immunity as a defense on summary judgment. 13 .

Black v. Colunga

656 F. Supp. 2d 625 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2009

With respect to the first step in the qualified immunity analysis, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights by failing to protect him from attack. … Majette was reasonable and clearly established law did not indicate that it was objectively unreasonable, thus she is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Peterson v. Tomaselli

469 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state officials from personal liability if their actions did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If either the right was not clearly established, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe the acts did not violate plaintiffs rights, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gaston v. Coughlin

861 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 12, 1994

Therefore, Defendants Le-Baron and Grant, both prison hearing officers, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right … Accordingly, the hearing officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

Chambliss v. Buckner

804 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 29, 2011

However, even if the evidence demonstrated a violation of § 407(a), for qualified immunity purposes, it was not clearly established at the time Mr. … Chambliss fails to show that any Defendant violated § 407(a) or, alternatively, that any violation involves a clearly established federal statutory right. Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Mr.

Han v. Department of Justice

824 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Feb 24, 1993

As the Ninth Circuit stated: “Officials performing discretionary functions, as were these officials, are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to avoid a qualified immunity claim plaintiffs must show the law clearly established that the TPAs were illegal and that the Chairperson and members of the Commission had a duty to disapprove them.

Duriex-Gauthier v. Lopez-Nieves

135 F. Supp. 2d 311 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 20, 2001

Defendants have also averred that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. … Defendants, therefore, are not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs First Amendment claim.

ESTATE OF SCOTT BY SCOTT v. DeLeon

603 F. Supp. 1328 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 13, 1985

I now consider the supervisory defendants' argument that they are protected against this claim by their qualified immunity, see Harlow v. … Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment based on their qualified immunity is DENIED.

Jolly v. Klein

923 F. Supp. 931 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 29, 1996

Qualified Immunity Dr. Klein asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … When determining whether qualified immunity is available, the actions of a reasonably competent official are assessed in the light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken.

Senu-Oke v. Jackson State University

521 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 12, 2007

immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and argued that [they] should be granted qualified immunity”). … their defense of qualified immunity. 5 .

Zavaro v. Coughlin

775 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 20, 1991

That issue presents a question which turns on Homrighouse’s right to a qualified immunity defense. … A state official may establish a right to qualified immunity from suit and from liability by showing (i) that it was not clear at the time of the official acts that the interest asserted by the plaintiff was protected by

Amili v. City of Tukwila

31 F. Supp. 3d 1274 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, ■ protects government officers “performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … See Torres, 648 F.3d at 1129 (test of whether right is clearly established cannot be so narrow that qualified immunity is transformed into absolute immunity).

Robertson v. Town of Farmerville

830 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Nov 17, 2011

Defendants argue that qualified immunity should be granted to these claims because the law was not clearly established and because Jackson did not knowingly violate such law. … Under qualified immunity, a state actor will be shielded from personal liability unless the right the actor violated was clearly established at the time of the violation. Harlow v.

Davenport v. Tunnell

698 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 28, 1988

In Coen , our circuit stated: Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects government officials from persona] liability unless their actions violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would … Moreover, if the law in this area is not yet “clearly established”, defendants still prevail because plaintiffs failed to clear the first hurdle in the qualified immunity analysis.

Ramos v. Hillsborough County

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 21, 1997

if the challenged “‘conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Regalado v. City of Chicago

40 F. Supp. 2d 1009 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 2, 1999

Finally, Officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right possessed by Regalado. … To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Regalado must show that the officials violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow v.

Huemmer v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, ETC.

474 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 9, 1979

The immunity established under Tenney was absolute, and Justice Powell, writing for the Court in Imbler , which established absolute immunity under section 1983 for a state prosecuting officer, characterized its scope as … Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have