Case law

Strepka v. Sailors

494 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 2, 2007

Qualified Immunity In Harlow v. … to qualified immunity.”

Ogden Ex Rel. Estate of Ogden v. Coutny of Maui

554 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Apr 21, 2008

Claim Against Officer Pacheco The defense of qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The defense of qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis.

Galarza v. Monti

327 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2018

For the plaintiff to overcome the qualified immunity defense, he must demonstrate that he possessed a clearly established constitutional right. … Therefore, the plaintiff can only overcome a claim of qualified immunity if it was clearly established at the time of the arrest that the plaintiff had a right to be free from a First Amendment retaliatory arrest even where

Kenney v. Charnock

441 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Jul 26, 2006

was clearly established must be considered[.]” 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … The sheriff filed a motion to dismiss based, inter aha, upon qualified immunity. Id.

Charron v. Picano

811 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Feb 2, 1993

Qualified immunity precludes suits for money damages against state officials performing discretionary tasks “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … For that reason, denial of a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds may be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Id.

Hedrick v. Pfeiffer

10 F. Supp. 2d 1106 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 11, 1998

When summary judgment is sought on qualified immunity, there are two parts to the analysis when the material facts are not in dispute. First, one decides whether the law was “clearly established.” … Further, because the evidence fails to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendants in fact violated clearly established law, the individual defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Rose v. Village of Peninsula

875 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 27, 1995

Thus, to determine if defendants Ruoff or Redmon violated any clearly established constitutional rights such that they would not be entitled to rely on qualified immunity, it is necessary for the Court to decide (1) what … It is not these general rights, however, but rather “particularized rights” that plaintiff must show were clearly established in order to avoid the defense of qualified immunity.

Abdul-Matiyn v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

871 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, N.D. New York · Dec 15, 1994

The defendant prison employees claim a qualified immunity as government officials performing discretionary acts. … Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields public officials from liability for their discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Kraft v. Jacka

669 F. Supp. 333 · District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 8, 1987

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 … The Plaintiffs can point to no clearly established constitutional or statutory right which they have been denied as a result of the defendants’ actions. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Edelin

76 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1999

are not entitled to qualified immunity. … ’ qualified immunity 1 .

Galvan v. Carothers

855 F. Supp. 285 · District Court, D. Alaska · Apr 21, 1994

However, the regulation does not create a “clearly established” constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Davis v. … Plaintiff does not attempt to explain why her right not to be placed in an all male prison wing was clearly established such that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Swanson v. Van Otterloo

993 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Jan 31, 1998

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently made the following observations regarding the use of qualified immunity in,§ 1983 actions: Once a defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must offer “particularized … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Van Otterloo must prove that Swanson’s First Amendment rights were not clearly established. See Burnham, 119 F.3d at 674 (citing Siegert v.

Kampschroer v. Anoka County

57 F. Supp. 3d 1124 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 3, 2014

Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings—where Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established statutory right—Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ DPPA claims. … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Plaintiffs must show that: (1) the facts demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.

Marcilis v. Redford Township

757 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 18, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … “The relevant, dispostive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” *673 The qualified

S.R. v. Kenton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

302 F. Supp. 3d 821 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 11, 2017

"Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions unless (1) the plaintiff has established a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of … Therefore, plaintiffs have not shown that it was "clearly established" in 2014 that Sumner's handcuffing of S.R. and L.G. was unconstitutional, and Sumner is thus entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Blair v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

719 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jun 22, 2010

“Public officials, of course, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In short, “qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit if he or she could have reasonably believed his or her conduct to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information [that the defendant] possessed

Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale

884 F. Supp. 2d 972 · District Court, D. Arizona · Aug 6, 2012

Qualified Immunity 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 … The Ninth Circuit held that the officers in Boyd were protected by qualified immunity, . but the case itself serves to clearly establish the law as of 2004. .

Rodriguez Esteras v. Solivan Diaz

266 F. Supp. 2d 270 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 29, 2003

Therefore, our qualified immunity inquiry turns on whether Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution was clearly established in March 2000, when the alleged violation occurred. … establishes’ law for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis.”

McCormick v. City of Lawrence

289 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 30, 2003

However, even if Plaintiffs had stated claims for constitutional violations, the court still would dismiss their claims because such claims are not clearly established under qualified immunity jurisprudence. C. … Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Greene v. Shegan

123 F. Supp. 3d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2015

“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 … [and (2) ] whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal citations omitted).