Case law

Rodriguez v. McClenning

399 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 2005

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability for “actions performed in the course of their duties if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In his motion for summary judgment, McClenning argued that he is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because sexual assault is not a clearly established Eighth Amendment violation.

Nicholson v. Moates

159 F. Supp. 2d 1336 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 5, 2001

When qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a constitutional right is asserted, then deter *1349 mine whether that right was clearly established. See Wilson v. … As to the clearly established law prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Plaintiff has cited to no case clearly establishing that similar actions are violative of constitutional rights.

Lamb v. Sutton

164 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jul 29, 1958

Kefauver was a legally qualified candidate. … There is no direct evidence that all of the required steps were taken to qualify either candidate in the primary, but the fact that both candidates were legally qualified at the time of the broadcast otherwise clearly appears

Sistemas Urbanos, Inc. v. Lugo Ramos

413 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 9, 2006

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally *103 are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In this case, the qualified immunity analysis cannot continue beyond the first prong.

Morgan v. Barry

785 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1992

Third, “because the officer may have a qualified immunity from liability for his conduct ... the complaint must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right ... that was clearly established at the … District of Columbia, 932 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1991) (finding qualified immunity because officers were not under a clearly established constitutional obligation to obtain medical care for drug overdose victim). 20 .

Riley v. Kurtz

893 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 6, 1995

Qualified Immunity Defendant also contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The key issue in analyzing a claim of qualified immunity is whether the defendant’s alleged conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Risbridger v. Connelly

122 F. Supp. 2d 857 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 31, 2000

Qualified Immunity The Court will first address Officer Fadley’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Grant, 73 F.3d 317, 321 (11th Cir. 1996)(per curiam)(police chief entitled to .qualified immunity because of lack of clearly established law). b.

Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa

79 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Dec 6, 1999

Finally, the defendants assert that Byrne is entitled to qualified immunity for performing the discretionary function of terminating Mercer, since that action did not violate Mercer’s clearly established statutory or constitutional … The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained the requirements for qualified immunity as follows: Officials are entitled to qualified immunity only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established

Whitley v. New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department

184 F. Supp. 2d 1146 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 26, 2001

Whether Defendants Rosales, Drake, and Zarate are entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability … Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims.

Piechowicz v. United States

685 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1988

In Harlow , Justice Powell wrote that a claim of qualified immunity rests upon the existence, if any, of the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law.” … Case law is not, however, the sole source of clearly established law. Alleged violations of clearly established statutory rights may also bar a defense of qualified immunity. See Davis v.

Santos v. County of Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs Section 1983 claims.

Erickson v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS

801 F. Supp. 414 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 15, 1992

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages while performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … In some circumstances the fact-specific balance struck under Pickering may preclude a determination of "clearly established law", thereby giving rise to qualified immunity under Harlow . Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1246 .

Weaver v. NEW YORK CITY EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM

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

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." *1043 457 U.S … Certainly, defendants' actions were not so arbitrary as to violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Rogers v. Alabama Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation

825 F. Supp. 986 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 26, 1993

In response, Defendants seek the protection of qualified immunity, which shields them from individual liability unless they engaged in conduct that violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Furthermore, even if a particular right is "clearly established" for purposes of defeating a qualified immunity defense, a supervisor ma~j not be held liable for the acts or omissions of a subordinate on a mere "respondeat

Williams v. Suffolk Cnty.

284 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 12, 2018

The Defendants have the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Garcia , 779 F.3d at 92 ; Vincent v. Yelich, 718 F.3d 157 , 166 (2d Cir. 2013) ; see also Tellier v. … As " 'arguable probable cause' will suffice to confer qualified immunity for the arrest," Escalera v.

Jenkins v. District of Columbia

4 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to the performance of their discretionary functions unless an official’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Coley’s arguments for qualified immunity, they will be denied. Her argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity for the assault at the police cruiser will be denied.

Oxborrow v. City of Coalinga

559 F. Supp. 2d 1072 · District Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2008

“In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, the officers must show that their discretionary conduct did not violate any clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” Penilla v. … “[Qualified immunity shields agents ... if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the action] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’ ” Hunter v.

Ridgeway v. Union County Commissioners

775 F. Supp. 1105 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 1991

Objective reasonableness is to be measured by reference to clearly established law. Id. … Payton clearly establishes that warrantless home searches absent “exigent” circumstances, are unconstitutional.

Berberena Rosado v. Cordero Santiago

668 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 19, 1987

The qualified immunity question as to this claim is whether it was clearly established at the time of the reorganization that any career employee transferred was entitled to procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment … and the sort of violation that qualified immunity does not protect against.

Carlson v. Beemer

225 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 21, 2016

Qualified immunity protects a state actor who has committed a constitutional violation if the plaintiffs rights were not “clearly established” when the individual acted. Pearson v. … B, Clearly Established Law The second qualified immunity prong tasks the court to determine whether the right in question was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. See Spady, 800 F.3d at 637 .