Case law

Gray v. Royal

181 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 31, 2016

Qualified Immunity Precludes the Federal Law Claims Brought Against Royal in his Individual Capacity but does not Preclude the Federal Law Claims Brought Against Williams in her Individual Capacity The qualified immunity … right was clearly established.

Ambrose v. Coffey

696 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 24, 2009

Whether Weydert and Coffey are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. 6 1. Grounds for Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that MUAs are legal. … Weydert and Coffey are “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show” their actions *1115 violated the Constitution. Pearson v.

Bafford v. Nelson

241 F. Supp. 2d 1192 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 18, 2002

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Bafford’s rights were “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (explaining that “the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established”).

Rex v. West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine

119 F. Supp. 3d 542 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 11, 2015

She asserts that qualified immunity is not available because the Defendants violated her clearly established right to be free from sex discrimination in education. … It is also clearly established that responding to complaints of sexual harassment with deliberate indifference violates that right. Jennings, 482 F.3d at 701.

Wheeler v. Gidley

2005 DNH 122 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 29, 2005

However, “the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Moreover, “[t]he right to be free from arrest without constitutionally adequate probable cause is clearly established,” Cox, 391 F.3d at 30 (citing Wagenmann v .

LANGE v. HOUSTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

District Court, M.D. Georgia · Oct 30, 2020

did not violate any clearly established rights. … “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for individual public officials performing discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Kimbrough v. Hogan

District Court, D. Nebraska · Feb 28, 2024

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strip Immunity must be denied for at least two reasons. First, while qualified immunity can be defeated in some scenarios, see Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials only to extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known), specific

Riley v. Smith

570 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 1983

Under Alexander, a defendant can establish the qualified immunity defense by pleading and proving either that the plaintiff’s constitutional tort claim was not clearly established at the time the alleged claim arose or that … Thus, the Court believes that defendant Smith has not established his qualified immunity claim, and this Court must reject the qualified immunity defense. d.

Fritz v. Daly et al.

2006 DNH 125 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 31, 2006

was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … "Because Pickering's constitutional rule turns upon a fact-intensive balancing test, it can rarely be considered clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity." Fabiano v.

Foote v. Spiegel

995 F. Supp. 1347 · District Court, D. Utah · Feb 23, 1998

Defendant Williams Has No Claim to Qualified, Immunity. … clearly established law.

Jabbar-El v. Sullivan

811 F. Supp. 265 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 30, 1992

Restated this means that a defendant has “qualified immunity unless plaintiffs’ ‘rights were so clearly established when the acts were committed that any officer in the defendant’s position, measured objectively, would have … To prevail against a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must set forth a particular and clearly established violation. Id. at 650 . Allegations of malice on the part of the defendant will not defeat the defense.

Wong v. City & County of Honolulu

333 F. Supp. 2d 942 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 26, 2004

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff satisfies the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Turning to the question of whether Plaintiffs rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Austin v. Town of Blacksburg

66 F. Supp. 2d 771 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jul 1, 1998

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “to the extent their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … It is true that "an official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.”

Ferris v. City of Cadillac

272 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 14, 2017

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known … If either factor is not satisfied, qualified immunity shields the officer from damages. Id. “ ‘[C]learly established law should not be defined at a high level of generality.” White v.

Vincent v. City of Sulphur

28 F. Supp. 3d 626 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 15, 2014

Thus, the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether the right was clearly established at the time, must be considered. … for the purpose of establishing qualified immunity.

Dorato v. Smith

108 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, D. New Mexico · May 26, 2015

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Komongnan v. U.S. Marshals Service

471 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2006

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 … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Reidenbach v. U.S.D. 437

878 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 10, 1995

The court explained as follows: The plaintiff cannot meet this burden merely by identifying a clearly established right and then alleging that the defendant has violated it. … However, since Leatherman did not address the *181 qualified immunity issue, the court shall continue to apply the requirements of Sawyer . 2 A motion to dismiss under Fed. R.

Cales v. Howell Public Schools

635 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 22, 1985

Since local governmental bodies are not protected by qualified immunity, see Owens v. … However, the principals underlying those decisions were clearly established at the time of this action.

Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin

347 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2004

“[Qualified immunity is an objective question to be decided by the court as a matter of law. The jury, however, determines disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question.” Id. … Qualified Immunity Because plaintiff has established a constitutional violation, I must now consider whether Officer Lebby should nevertheless be shielded from liability because his actions did not violate “clearly established