Case law

Faghri v. University of Connecticut

608 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 20, 2009

The defendants’ final ground for summary judgment is that Austin and Nicholls are entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Qualified immunity ... shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable official

C.N. v. Wolf

410 F. Supp. 2d 894 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 28, 2005

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Hence the Complaint alleges discriminatory treatment regarding a clearly established constitutional right, and Wolf is not entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Sabo v. O'BANNON

586 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1984

In their motions for summary judgments, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. See Harlow v. … If the law was not clearly established, the defendant should prevail on the basis of the qualified immunity defense unless the plaintiff claims that the official actually knew that he was violating the law.

Jackson-El v. Winsor

986 F. Supp. 440 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 18, 1997

[W]hen a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must effectively pass two hurdles. First, the allegations must state a claim of the violation of clearly established law. … Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the retaliation claim because the standard for analyzing retaliation claims was not clearly established at the time of the January 30 incident.

Decotiis v. Whittemore

680 F. Supp. 2d 263 · District Court, D. Maine · Jan 28, 2010

However, in the interest of completeness, the Court will also address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis' — whether, assuming that a constitutional violation occurred, such right was clearly established. … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs Complaint stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation, Defendant Whittemore is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the First Amendment would be violated

Gunasekera v. Irwin

517 F. Supp. 2d 999 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity, or “good faith” immunity, is an affirmative defense that a defendant state official may raise. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … Even if the Court found that Graduate Faculty status constitutes a protected property interest, this interest is not clearly established.

DEFOE EX REL. DEFOE v. Spiva

566 F. Supp. 2d 748 · District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jul 10, 2008

Qualified immunity does not shield public officials from liability for violating constitutional rights which are clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … If the court determines that the right is clearly established, qualified immunity does not shield the public officials from liability. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Abiff v. Slaton

806 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Oct 29, 1992

Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to these Defendants in their individual capacities. b) Qualified immunity Defendants have both (1) raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity and (2) argued … In his reply, Plaintiff, in an effort to avoid these immunity defenses, asserts that “since Plaintiffs action is an official-capacity-lawsuit the Defendants qualified immunity defense is not available in this case.”

White v. United States of America

863 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2012

clearly established.” … Courts may grant qualified immunity “on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly-established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.

Robinson v. Keita

20 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 20, 2014

“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....”

McREADY v. O'MALLEY

804 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 31, 2011

UMUC’s interest in maintaining discipline and efficiently administering the accounting department clearly outweighed Dr. McReady’s speech interests. *441 c. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Where the free speech rights Defendants allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time their challenged actions were taken, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 805 . Here, Dr.

COMMISSIONED II LOVE v. Yarbrough

621 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Aug 24, 2007

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Swearingen v. Carle

286 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Dec 22, 2017

"Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would … conduct violated a clearly established right."

Arbaugh v. Board of Education

329 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Aug 6, 2004

Qualified Immunity Thompson asserts the defense of qualified immunity in his reply. … In conclusion, Thompson cannot meet his burden to prove his defense of qualified immunity.

Myers v. Simpson

831 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2011

The “clearly established” standard of qualified immunity ensures that government officials are on fair notice that their conduct is impermissible. Defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Rights Even assuming, arguendo, that the women-only classes violate equal protection, Myers’ request for damages fails because the defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Berlickij v. Town of Castleton

248 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, D. Vermont · Feb 24, 2003

Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for federal civil damages if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the officials] to … Third, even where a right is clearly established, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if they show that reasonable persons in their positions would not have understood that their conduct violated that right.

Carroll v. City of Quincy

441 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 9, 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 … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless: 1) the plaintiff’s allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation, 2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation and 3) a similarly

Gruenberg v. Gempeler

740 F. Supp. 2d 1018 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 30, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … This at least suggests that any additional rights Gruenberg may have had were not clearly established.

Robitaille v. Spitzer

175 F. Supp. 3d 1299 · District Court, D. Colorado · Mar 30, 2016

Asserting qualified immunity protects government officials ’’from liability for civil damages insofar as their *1303 conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The law governing the procedure for reviewing an affirmative defense of qualified immunity raised at summary judgment is well established in the Tenth Circuit.

Pullen v. House

88 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 20, 2015

In the alternative, defendants argue that clearly established law does not show that they violated plaintiffs constitutional rights, so they are entitled to qualified immunity. … . -, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2066-67 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014) (defendants not entitled to qualified immunity if “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct”).