Case law

Marrero v. City of Hialeah

581 F. Supp. 1207 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 8, 1984

Stated another way, the Marreros can only defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right allegedly infringed by [him] was clearly established at the time of [his] conduct, [that he] knew or … To defeat Rashkind’s qualified immunity, the Marreros must demonstrate the existence “of clearly established judicial decisions that make his action[s during the seizure] unconstitutional,” Rheaume, 666 F.2d at 930 , or the

The ANDERSON GROUP, LLC v. City of Saratoga Springs

557 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, N.D. New York · Mar 25, 2008

Qualifíed Immunity The court turns next to the defendants’ assertion that the court erred in denying the council and board defendants qualified immunity. … A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Messe

746 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1990

In the alternative, the defendants contend that they are immune from liability because the law was not clearly established. Finally, the defendants argue that special factors militate in favor of granting them immunity. … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Shakir v. Derby Police Dep't

284 F. Supp. 3d 165 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 5, 2018

Public officials can establish qualified immunity in *187 one of two ways: by demonstrating (1) that "their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights," or (2) that "it was objectively reasonable for … Stankye does not raise an argument via the first means of establishing qualified immunity; that is, he does not challenge whether Shakir's right was clearly established or not. See Stankye Mem. in Supp. at 25-28.

Cordero v. Pack

368 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2019

Finally, the court finds neither Haecker nor Wynn is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. 2 "A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or … An official is protected by qualified immunity if the plaintiff (1) established a violation of a constitutional right and (2) at the time of the alleged violation the law regarding that violation was clearly established.

Oladipupo v. Austin

104 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 24, 2000

Qualified Immunity and Clearly Established Rights All defendants contend that they are protected from liability on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials in the course of performance of their discretionary duties unless their conduct violates a “clearly established [federal] statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person

Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights

809 F. Supp. 2d 719 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 2011

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability if the official’s conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known were in existence. … The court therefore finds that qualified immunity is not appropriate because Irvin’s account supports a finding that the backup officers violated a clearly established constitutional right to be free from gratuitous beating

Ramirez v. Fonseca

331 F. Supp. 3d 667 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 6, 2018

Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Defendant asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Plaintiff has not shown that his conduct violated Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights or that the force he used was clearly

Johnson v. Officer Musa Hammett

District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 23, 2019

However, “[a] right need not be recognized by a court in a specific factual context before such right may be considered ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity.” … Because Hammett’s “actions comported with clearly established Maryland law regarding the service of warrants,” ECF 36 at 4, he maintains that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity.

Nauman v. BUGADO

374 F. Supp. 2d 893 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jun 17, 2005

Government officials' performing discretionary functions are granted qualified immunity from civil liability for actions performed in the course of their official duties, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The United States Supreme Court has explicitly established a framework for lower courts to follow when addressing claims of qualified immunity.

Lea v. Kirby

171 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2001

Section 1988 Claim Police officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to immunity from Section 1983 liability for money damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Police officers performing a discretionary function are entitled to immunity from civil damages “unless (1) the officers’ conduct violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established

Sealey v. Coughlin

857 F. Supp. 214 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 15, 1994

The qualified immunity doctrine insulates a governmental official performing discretionary functions from liability as long as his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

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

Smith v. Utah Valley University

97 F. Supp. 3d 998 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Mar 20, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … Thus, qualified immunity bars Mr.

Deritis v. Roger

165 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity Government officials are protected from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. 70 *245 The Supreme Court has mandated a two-step … inquiry to evaluate whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. 71 Courts must determine whether a defendant has violated a constitutional right and whether this right was clearly established at the

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

Haussman v. Fergus

894 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1995

Qualified Immunity This Court, having concluded that probable cause existed for plaintiffs arrest, need not reach the issue of qualified immunity. … federal right. 23 Consequently, they are immune from liability under § 1983 on grounds of qualified immunity.

Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex

394 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 18, 2005

Disputed Material Facts Prevent the Court From Making a Qualified Immunity Determination. Defendants claim that Superintendent Moore and Dr. Kenney are entitled to qualified immunity. … In support of their qualified immunity claim as to Superintendent Moore and Dr.

Jamison v. Storm

426 F. Supp. 2d 1144 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 29, 2006

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Officer English is also entitled to qualified immunity as to the state-created danger doctrine claim on the grounds the right Plaintiff asserts, even if it existed, was not clearly established … Even if a viable constitutional right existed, Officer English would be entitled to qualified immunity because that right has not been clearly established as it relates to the circumstances of this case.

Suber v. Guinta

902 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity The defendant Officers seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields state officials from suit when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Yarris v.