Case law

Bogle v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 27, 2025

Hyatt should not be shielded by qualified immunity. The Court agrees. As to the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Ms. … App'x 533, 535 (2d Cir. 2004) (dismissing qualified immunity appeal because employee's right to be free from racially discriminatory imposition of a probationary period was clearly established in 2004)); DiLegge v.

Krzywkowski v. Mohr

District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 28, 2025

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … on grounds of qualified immunity.

Wilansky v. Bakke

District Court, D. North Dakota · Apr 3, 2024

Accordingly, the individually-named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Claim One of the Amended Complaint. See Jones v. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (when deciding qualified immunity, the Court looks to (1) whether a constitutional violation has been adequately pled and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … immunity at this time since “[i]t was clearly established by [Baker v.

ALIOTA v. MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2024

If the complaint fails to state a claim of a violation of clearly established law on its face, “a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Here, the individual Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the “filing of a counterclaim for defamation did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights” (ECF No. 18,

Levine v. City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Dec 29, 2017

Featherstone are each entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Levine’s claims against them in their individual capacities. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

In Re KBR, Inc.

736 F. Supp. 2d 954 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 8, 2010

Clearly, the Supreme Court viewed the concept of derivative sovereign immunity, at least as it derives from the immunity of federal officials, as separate and distinct from the preemption-based government contractor defense … Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has clearly embraced the terminology of derivative sovereign immunity, as explained herein. See infra Parts I.B.2-3.

Hughes v. Alabama Department of Public Safety

994 F. Supp. 1395 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Feb 23, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant engaged in conduct that violated “clearly established law.” Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d at 1559, 1565 (11th Cir.1994). … In addition, Hughes has failed to establish that the individual defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

Schultz v. Braga

290 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 13, 2003

Thus, “unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … In ruling on a defense of qualified immunity, a court must (1) identify “the specific right allegedly violated”; (2) determine “whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established”; and (3) if so

Davis v. Bradshaw

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2020

Pridmore, 961 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that identification of a broad, clearly established principle is one way to show that a defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right … Davis has not carried his burden to show that Deputy Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Keating v.

Ramirez v. Killian

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 30, 2022

The qualified-immunity analysis requires that a right be “clearly established.” See id. … violated clearly established law.”

Terrell v. Harris County

District Court, S.D. Texas · Sep 6, 2022

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 169 (5th Cir. 2009) (an off-duty officer responding to a traffic violation was not entitled to qualified immunity because the officer allegedly violated clearly established law). … “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Hails v. Dennis

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 14, 2018

Forsyth the Supreme Court reiterated that “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the … of a clearly established constitutional right.’ “).

Turner v. City of North Charleston

675 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Dec 14, 1987

If this right to protection was not then “clearly established,” these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, to summary judgment. … If this right is not clearly established, good faith immunity may be invoked regardless of the language of the statute. See Jensen, 747 F.2d at 195, n. 12 . 3 .

(PC) Abdullah v. Dacuycuy

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified Immunity 5 Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions they took 6 were not clearly unconstitutional. (ECF No. 52-1 at 21.) … (Id.) 9 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 10 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Vasquez v. Davis

226 F. Supp. 3d 1189 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 28, 2016

Duty & Qualified Immunity a. … The “clearly established” element of the qualified immunity analysis would not require a specific case about vomiting blood before CDOC officials could be held liable. Cf.

Hamilton v. The City of Wilmer Texas

District Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 1, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead facts: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … “To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Brown v.

Maye v. New Haven

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 24, 2023

The qualified immunity decisions Defendants cite as the “controlling decisions” were the law on qualified immunity when the deadline for dispositive motions passed. … City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 108 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law.”) (citing cases).

West v. Kind

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 12, 2024

Most of the time, the reason for dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds is the lack of a clearly established constitutional right. … “Ultimately, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate based on qualified immunity only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations, taken as true, do not ‘state a claim of violation of clearly established law.’”

Scott v. Carpenter

District Court, D. South Dakota · Jan 25, 2024

for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of qualified immunity.” … issue can be resolved); Lovelace, 47 F.3d at 287 (holding that discovery was appropriate when plaintiff states a claim of violation of a clearly established law and the parties disagree as to what actions the defendants