Case law

Reidenbach v. U.S.D. 437

878 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 10, 1995

The court explained as follows: The plaintiff cannot meet this burden merely by identifying a clearly established right and then alleging that the defendant has violated it. … However, since Leatherman did not address the *181 qualified immunity issue, the court shall continue to apply the requirements of Sawyer . 2 A motion to dismiss under Fed. R.

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

Heisler v. Kralik

981 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 29, 1997

The Report recommended denial of the claim of qualified immunity since it had been clearly established prior to May 1993 that prison officials violate a pretrial detainee’s due process right to be free from punishment when … Finally, defendant Kardian contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the rights which the plaintiff alleges he violated were not clearly established in May 1993.

Sturdevant v. Haferman

798 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 6, 1992

He then concluded that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity in that capacity, because they are alleged to have violated clearly established constitutional procedures. … They are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities at this juncture, however, because they are alleged to have violated long-established due process rights. In Harlow v.

Steffenhagen v. Armontrout

749 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Oct 11, 1990

Defendants argue that because there was no “clearly established” constitutional right to a parent-child relationship at the time of Mark’s death, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … This right was clearly established at the time of Mark’s death. Whether Mark’s parents had a clearly established right to sue is irrelevant to the qualified immunity determination.

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.

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.

Gutierrez v. Toledo

780 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 2, 2011

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense against personal liability which may be raised by state officials. Whitfield v. Meléndez-Rivera, 431 F.3d 1 , 6 (1st Cir.2005). … More specifically, “qualified immunity remains available to defendants who demonstrate that they acted objectively reasonably in applying clearly established law to the specific facts they faced.” Id. (citing Burke v.

Henderson v. City of Woodbury

233 F. Supp. 3d 723 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 9, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields [a] government official[ ] from liability ... unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional ... right of which a reasonable person would have known.” LaCross v. … If so, were those rights clearly established on the date in question? Id.

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

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.

Weaver ex rel. Weaver v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

717 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 1989

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). .Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Certainly, defendants’ actions were not so arbitrary as to violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Svitlik v. O'LEARY

419 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 11, 2006

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for violating a person’s constitutional right if the particular right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, or it was … See Cerrone, 246 F.3d at 199 (observing that this prohibition was clearly established before 1995).

Dantone v. Bhaddi

570 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 15, 2008

Bhaddi is entitled to qualified immunity, and that Dantone has failed to plead and/or establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on his medical treatment. … The right must be clearly established such that a reasonable official would be on notice that the conduct was unlawful and that the conduct violated the clearly established right. See Velez-Diaz v.

Wimer v. Holzapfel

868 F. Supp. 844 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity While the court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment motion obviates the need to examine the issue of qualified immunity, this court feels it is appropriate to address the question. … It is for this court to decide whether Sheriff Holzapfel is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Estate of Thurman v. City of Milwaukee

197 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 29, 2002

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 … The burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “‘all but the plainly

5 BOROUGH PAWN, LLC. v. Marti

753 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 22, 2010

For example, when a court may easily decide that the alleged violation of the constitutional right was not clearly established, there is no need to reach the constitutional question. Id. … Because of an absence of proof, Marti has not established that he is entitled to qualified immunity to shield him from liability for the Second Arrest.

Snider v. City of Cape Girardeau

861 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 21, 2012

Qualified immunity shields a public official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” El-Ghazzawy v. … To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that the rights he asserts were clearly established so that a reasonable officer would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Bausch v. Sumiec

139 F. Supp. 2d 1029 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 10, 2001

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 established statutory … Once a defendant has *1039 pleaded a defense of qualified immunity courts employ a two step- analysis: (1) does the alleged conduct set out a constitutional violation, and (2) were the constitutional standards clearly established

U.S. Tobacco Coop., Inc. v. Big S. Wholesale of Va., LLC

365 F. Supp. 3d 604 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 19, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for a statutory or constitutional violation so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … Accordingly, as the rights alleged to have been violated were not clearly established, the Big Sky defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' federal RICO claims. B.