Case law

Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

963 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, D. Nevada · Aug 2, 2013

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 much has been clearly established.

Chapman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

291 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 25, 2018

Clearly Established Law I next turn to whether the Defendants' actions violated clearly established law. … Accordingly, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the motion for summary judgment is denied. IV.

Harrison v. Prince William County Police Department

640 F. Supp. 2d 688 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 10, 2009

Qualified Immunity Police officers sued under § 1983 have the benefit of qualified immunity, which protects them from civil suits when their performance of discretionary functions “does not violate clearly established statutory … The second qualified immunity inquiry asks whether the violated right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Bernstein v. New York

591 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 2008

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability if the officials’ conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … . 135 If the violated right was not clearly established, the officer is immunized from liability.

Meyers v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD.

814 F. Supp. 2d 552 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 28, 2011

The Defendants argue that no constitutional violation occurred and that, even if it did, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding the violation. Id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Dominguez v. Sancha

50 F. Supp. 3d 117 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 30, 2014

A qualified immunity analysis consists of two prongs: (1) whether the facts as alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established given the state of the … on qualified immunity.”

Harris v. City of Kansas City, Kan.

703 F. Supp. 1455 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 9, 1988

Defendants Armstrong, Nelson and Fowler also seek qualified immunity on the section 1983 claims against them on the grounds that their entry into and search of the Harris home did not violate clearly established statutory … Therefore, the initial search did not violate clearly established law and qualified immunity will attach to the officers’ initial search of the Harris residence.

Ford v. Dowd

772 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 20, 1991

Wilson’s motion for qualified immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity whenever his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Crema v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, D. Nevada · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity 15 Defendants contend that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First 16 Cause of Action because there was no clearly established law at the time of … Second Prong 11 As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, Plaintiff has also met his burden 12 in showing that Defendants violated a clearly established right.

Hicks v. Brysch

989 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 29, 1997

A party seeking damages from an official asserting Harlow qualified immunity bears the burden of overcoming that defense. 105 Once a government official or employee has asserted qualified immunity and established that the … . 122 In a Section 1983 lawsuit, the relevant inquiry is whether the legal right which the plaintiff asserts was violated "was clearly established under federal ■ law. 123 Whether an official protected by qualified immunity

Cordova v. Lake County

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 29, 2024

To analyze qualified immunity, a court engages in a two- 14 prong inquiry, asking whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was 15 “clearly established.” Pearson v. … The Court concludes 21 that Howe and Martinez are entitled to qualified immunity.

Youngblood v. Bender

104 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jul 18, 2000

Qualified Immunity While performing discretionary functions, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Established Constitutional Right To defeat summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must first show that the defendant official violated a clearly established constitutional right, See: Hare,

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.

Davison v. Frey

837 F. Supp. 235 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 16, 1993

Defendants have raised a defense of qualified immunity. In order to be shielded by qualified immunity, defendant Frey’s request for a search warrant must have been objectively reasonable. Malley v. … But a dispute as to the existence of probable cause is all that is needed in order to establish qualified immunity for an official who obtained a search warrant.

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

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.

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.

Demarco v. Sadiker

897 F. Supp. 693 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 22, 1995

Thus, Savacool does not support defendant’s claim that plaintiff has failed to establish a constitutional violation, but only the proposition that qualified immunity protects officials from merely negligent violations. … reasonableness’ of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

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

Paola v. Spada

498 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 9, 2007

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when they perform discretionary duties pursuant to their official functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, a qualified immunity defense is established where “(a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate