Case law

Heard v. City of N.Y.

319 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 10, 2018

, the officer may still be shielded from liability for false arrest under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions, such as arrests, "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Smith v. Lanier

573 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Terrell v. City of El Paso

481 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Feb 26, 2007

District Attorney Esparza’s qualified immunity Esparza argues that he is shielded by qualified immunity from Terrell’s § 1983 *764 because Terrell failed to assert any constitutional violations. … If the official conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is still entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the established legal rules at the time of the alleged

Whitehead v. School Board for Hillsborough County

932 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 28, 1996

The Supreme Court has held that qualified immunity is not just a defense to liability, but rather is an immunity from suit. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). … Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Response in Excess of 20 Pages Plaintiff bears the burden, when confronted with a qualified immunity claim, to show Defendant allegedly violated a clearly established federal right.

Estate of Olivas Ex Rel. Miranda v. City & County of Denver

929 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 22, 1996

To reach the issue of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court in Siegert v. … Guzman and Collier are entitled to qualified immunity. 9 .

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro

981 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1997

Defendants argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … In such instances, the defense of qualified immunity is not necessary and should not be reached.

Keeney v. City of New London

196 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 25, 2002

They did not present an argument that they were entitled to qualified immunity for striking Nolan in the head and face. Accordingly, the court does not address whether qualified immunity applies to that conduct. … [ ] ... in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’

Leibel v. City of Buckeye

364 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 30, 2019

s clearly-established constitutional rights. Thus, Officer Grossman is not entitled to qualified immunity on Cause I at this early stage of litigation. … Because the right to be free from excessive force is clearly established, Officer Grossman is not, at this juncture, entitled to qualified immunity related to Cause II.

Ferreira v. Dubois

963 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 18, 1996

Qualified immunity exists insofar as defendants’ “ ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Elliott v. … Thus, even when rights are clearly established, “qualified immunity protects a governmental official ‘if it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.’ ” Russell v.

Lay v. Porker

371 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2004

The Constitutional Violation Was Not Clearly Established The second Saucier prong raises the “purely legal” issue of whether the law at the time of the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. Biggs v. … Conclusion As the unlawfulness of Defendant’s conduct was not “clearly established” within the framework of Saucier. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims asserted against him.

O'CALLAGHAN v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1990

Nevertheless, because their conduct resulted in the violation of “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Accordingly, their qualified immunity defense must fail.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

445 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2006

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 2. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

Atkins v. Latanzio

918 F. Supp. 668 · District Court, W.D. New York · May 18, 1995

Qualified Immunity. … Even when such rights are clearly established, qualified immunity will protect a government official “if it was objectively reasonable for [the official] to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Stein v. Janos

269 F. Supp. 2d 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 2003

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Davila Aleman v. Feliciano Melecio

992 F. Supp. 91 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 22, 1998

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory authority or … Defendants in this case are clearly not protected by qualified immunity based on any notion that the law of political discharge was not clear at the time of their actions.

Torres v. White

685 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 27, 2010

Qualified immunity shields officers from suit for official acts, as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established

Orum v. Haines

68 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, N.D. West Virginia · Sep 21, 1999

Additionally, qualified immunity shields a governmental official from liability if the officer’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Therefore the Defendant, Warden Williams Haines is entitled to qualified immunity.

Fernandez v. City of Cooper City

207 F. Supp. 2d 1371 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 10, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of *1376 which … Qualified immunity recognizes that, "where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest ■ may be better served by action taken ‘with independence

Villegas

District Court, W.D. Texas · Dec 9, 2025

Qualified immunity is “a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general.”47 A defendant-officer raising a qualified immunity defense does not automatically demand a global stay of claims brought … immunity defense.53 This defense contemplates whether his conduct during the Second Investigation (1) violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;54 and/or (2) was “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established

McCarley v. Dunn

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 7, 2024

McCarley must plausibly plead a violation of a clearly established constitutional right to overcome qualified immunity. … Because McCarley plausibly states a claim for violation of clearly established law, Baker and Dent are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.