Case law

Davila v. N. Reg'l Joint Police Bd.

370 F. Supp. 3d 498 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2019

"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 … In deciding whether qualified immunity applies, a court must determine whether the facts that the claimant has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was "clearly established"

Boomer v. Irvin

919 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 20, 1995

Qualified Immunity. Finally, defendants move for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … 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.”

Warren

District Court, D. Kansas · May 4, 2026

Clearly Established Plaintiff has also demonstrated the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis on the malicious prosecution claim—that it was clearly established at the time … Finally, Plaintiff has also demonstrated the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis on his conspiracy claim—that it was clearly established at the time of the 2009 shooting investigation.

Jones v. Beatty

4 F. Supp. 2d 737 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 30, 1998

The next step in a qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether the alleged violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … The right to be free from unreasonable seizures, and to be free from the use of excessive force, is clearly established under the Fourth Amendment for purposes of a claim of qualified immunity. 4 Therefore, the next inquiry

Lockett v. NEW ORLEANS CITY

639 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Jun 26, 2009

Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir.2005)). 22 “To be ‘clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he … violation or whether the right at issue is clearly established. 23 .

Vega v. State University of New York Board of Trustees

67 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 1999

Accordingly, the First Amendment right to academic freedom was clearly established in the summer of 1994 and this argument by the SUNY Defendants in support of their claim of qualified immunity is rejected. b. … The attempt to invoke the defense of qualified immunity on the ground that the right to a predeprivation hearing was not clearly established in the summer of 1994, therefore, fails.

Tapia v. City of Albuquerque

10 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2014

established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Clearly Established Bights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis.

Wright v. Santopietro

325 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2003

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields governmental actors from liability for suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 7 as long as their conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … When “the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was objectively reasonable for him to believe

Turpin v. Ray

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2018

“clearly established” under the circumstances. … Callahan, Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle, 819 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28–29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Gaines v. Choctaw County Commission

242 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Jan 9, 2003

Individual Capacity Claims/Qualified Immunity Sheriff Lolley contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ claims against him in his individual capacity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trial (and other burdens of litigation, including discovery) and from liability if their conduct violates no ‘clearly established

Elliot Brown v. Fall Mtn. School

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 1, 1999

A defendant will be entitled to claim gualified immunity in response to a supervisory liability claim based on § 1983 if (1) the subordinate's conduct did not violate plaintiff's clearly established rights under federal … Koch, 96 F.3d 1298, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1996) (denying qualified immunity to school principle sued for assaulting students).

Jackson v. Stevens

694 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · Feb 11, 2010

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge erred because he did not address her qualified immunity argument. … Qualified immunity shields governmental defendants sued in their individual capacities so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Cahill v. O'DONNELL

75 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 1999

Qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or unless it was objectively … “Where there is a total absence of retaliation, there is no basis on which to conclude that the defendant seeking qualified immunity violated clearly established law.” McCullough v.

Soderstrand v. OKLAHOMA, EX REL. BD. OF REGENTS

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Goins v. City of Detroit

408 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 19, 2005

Under the qualified-immunity doctrine, government officials performing discretionary functions are not liable for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Moreover, because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Zani, in fact, engaged in conduct that would have violated Plaintiffs clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights, Zani is not entitled to qualified immunity

Bostrom v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services

969 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 2013

Finally, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because any such right was not clearly established by precedent. 1. … Therefore, while a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights may have occurred, Defendants Broglin and Schuh are entitled to qualified immunity as it was not clearly established that their conduct was unlawful.

Turiano v. Schnarrs

904 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 1995

The defense of qualified immunity, as discussed in greater detail below, concerns the existence of a plaintiffs clearly established rights. Harlow v. … Before a court analyzes a claim of qualified immunity, it first should determine whether a plaintiff has alleged “a viola *414 tion of a clearly established constitutional right.”

Isbell v. Bellino

962 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2013

A state actor *749 “sued in Ms individual capacity enjoys qualified immunity if Ms conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … could thus not be clearly established for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis.

Woolverton v. City of Wardell

District Court, E.D. Missouri · May 28, 2020

The court must follow a two-step inquiry in a qualified immunity analysis: “(1) whether the facts shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) whether that right was clearly … If genuine disputes of material fact underlie either prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, the district court may not resolve the disputes of fact and qualified immunity must be denied. See Wealot v.

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC. v. Silva

809 F. Supp. 2d 1266 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2011

Qualified immunity serves to shield government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or con *1288 stitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Courts have “discretion to grant qualified immunity on the basis of the ‘clearly established’ prong, alone, without deciding in the first instance whether any right had been violated.” James v.