Case law

Wordley v. San Miguel

915 F. Supp. 2d 1312 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 3, 2013

Qualified immunity offers government officials sued in their individual capacity complete protection as long as their conduct violates no clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known. Hoyt v. … Under this test, the law is clearly established, and qualified immunity can be overcome, only if the standards set forth in Graham and our own case law “inevitably lead every reasonable officer in [the defendant’s] position

I.H. v. Cumberland Valley School District

842 F. Supp. 2d 762 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 2012

to qualified immunity. … qualified immunity.

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.

Kregler v. City of New York

987 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2013

to qualified immunity from suit. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity when “(1) Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a federal right; (2) the right alleged was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; or (3) the

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.

Estate of Young v. State of New York Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

649 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2009

are alleged to have violated.’ ” 58 A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) the defendant’s actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe … clearly established at the time the violation occurred.

Brin v. Kansas

101 F. Supp. 2d 1343 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 2000

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs § 1983 claims. … “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

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....”

Chism v. Washington Ex Rel. Washington State Patrol

683 F. Supp. 2d 1145 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity and Summary Judgment 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 … Even assuming the existence of a constitutional violation, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

FRY EX REL. ESTATE OF FRY v. City of Galena

450 F. Supp. 2d 1236 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 12, 2006

Thus, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a constitutional right at all or if the plaintiff fails to show the law was clearly established. Id. … Fry has failed to establish that defendants acted recklessly and likewise has failed to establish the Fourth Amendment constitutional violation necessary to overcome defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. b.

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.

Toler v. Paulson

551 F. Supp. 2d 1039 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 14, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … In analyzing claims involving qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-part test.

Mayfield v. Butler Snow LLP

341 F. Supp. 3d 664 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Sep 18, 2018

Qualified Immunity Four defendants have invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … The Court will then have to address whether she is entitled to qualified immunity because this anti-retaliation principle was (arguably) not clearly established in spring 2014. Additional briefing would be helpful.

Rodriguez v. Cruz

296 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Nov 6, 2003

Essentially, Cruz argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Rodriguez’s reports involved a matter of public concern. … As discussed above, it was not clearly established that Rodriguez’s speech addressed a matter of public concern and Cruz is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. B.

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.

Olvera v. County of Sacramento

932 F. Supp. 2d 1123 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2013

If the court concludes a right is not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … If a right is clearly established, an official is not entitled to qualified immunity unless a • reasonable official would not have known that his conduct violated the clearly established right.

Walden v. City of Providence

495 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Jul 6, 2007

Qualified immunity shields certain 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 would … Further, qualified immunity will protect the official who mistakenly violates a clearly established law if his “mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Hardy v. Town of Hayneville

50 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 8, 1999

An official is entitled to qualified immunity if he is performing discretionary functions and his actions do “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings if the Plaintiffs complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.