Case law

Nelson v. Lott

330 F. Supp. 3d 1314 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jul 24, 2018

The second element of the qualified immunity test The second element of the qualified immunity test requires a determination of whether the constitutional violation was "clearly established" on the date of the event leading … Because plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that defendants violated Nelson's clearly established right to be free from excessive force, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on plaintiff's

McCutchen v. Tipton County

430 F. Supp. 2d 741 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 10, 2006

are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Hatfield Bermudez v. Rey Hernandez

245 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 11, 2003

Accordingly, Plaintiffs due process claims are dismissed. 4 Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … The qualified immunity doctrine protects, state officials from civil liability under § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have been

Wilson Ex Rel. Wilson v. Formigoni

832 F. Supp. 1152 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 9, 1993

Our analysis of the qualified immunity question begins with Harlow v. … Qualified Immunity Of course, the Defendants argue that qualified immunity also bars the Plaintiffs procedural due process claim. We disagree.

McDonald v. City of Bos.

334 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2018

"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 … "[T]he second, 'clearly established' step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects." Maldonado v. Fontanes , 568 F.3d 263 , 269 (1st Cir. 2009).

Russoli v. Salisbury Township

126 F. Supp. 2d 821 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2000

The Supreme Court has established that qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether the Officers have qualified immunity, we must ask whether a reasonable Officer could have believed the force used to be reasonable in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.

Seneway v. Canon McMillan School District

969 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1997

Qualified immunity entitles governmental officials performing discretionary functions to immunity when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Consistent with this established law, Plaintiffs allegations in this case rise to the level of violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

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 .

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

Escobar v. Reid

668 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 17, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss certain claims on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity Defendants Raymond and Gonzales argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs Sixth Claim for Relief. Second Motion for Summary Judgment [# 178] at 3.

Idom v. Natchez-Adams School District

115 F. Supp. 3d 792 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 14, 2015

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, courts apply the two pronged analysis established in Saucier v. … Turning to Hill and Smith, both have raised the defense of qualified immunity. To overcome this defense, Idom must allege that a clearly established constitutional right was violated.

Nolan v. Krajcik

384 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 12, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Instead, the court determined that the defendant police officers were shielded by qualified immunity because no such constitutional right was clearly established until the Supreme Court decided Wilson v.

Robinson v. Cnty. of Shasta

384 F. Supp. 3d 1137 · District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2019

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court notes that clearly established law must be defined with a "high 'degree of specificity.' " District of Columbia v. Wesby , --- U.S. ----, 138 S. … Ultimately, because no controlling authority had yet clearly established as unconstitutional the use of a taser in dart mode, as used by the officer, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 833.

Van Deelen v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District 512

316 F. Supp. 2d 1052 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 18, 2004

Qualified Immunity Under certain circumstances, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields public officials from individual liability in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Harlow v. … At the very least, the law was not clearly established that plaintiffs conduct was constitutionally protected, thus entitling defendants Krawitz and Burgat to qualified immunity on this basis as well.

Blake v. Berman

598 F. Supp. 1081 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 11, 1984

Defendants also contend that plaintiff’s claim for damages is foreclosed by defendants’ qualified immunity. … right was not clearly established at the time of plaintiff’s transfer to Leavenworth seems dubious at best.

McCormick v. Edwards

479 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 26, 1979

Rhodes, supra, the Supreme Court made reference to what it termed a “qualified immunity” available under certain circumstances to officers of the executive branch of government: “. . .a qualified immunity is available to … The principles contained in the cases cited in Elrod , dating as far back as 1943, clearly show the illegality of the acts with which the defendants herein are charged, and they clearly establish that those principles have

DeVatt v. Lohenitz

338 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2004

DISCUSSION Standard for Qualified Immunity The standard for qualified immunity is uniform regardless of “the precise nature of various officials’ duties or the precise character of the particular rights alleged to have been … If qualified immunity is to be defeated, plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. Initially, he must establish that the government official violated a “basic, unquestioned constitutional right” belonging to plaintiff.

Tate v. Lau

865 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Nevada · Oct 11, 1994

Qualified immunity is available to government officials if they could have reasonably believed their acts were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information they possessed. Kennedy v. … The Supreme Court explains qualified immunity in the following manner: Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal

Muhammad v. Skinner

193 F. Supp. 3d 821 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 24, 2016

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity “unless a plaintiff *830 pleads facts showing: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at

Opala v. Watt

393 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 20, 2005

and qualified immunity. … The Court will next address whether Defendants are immune from suit due to absolute or qualified immunity.