Case law

Mawhirt v. Ahmed

86 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 14, 2000

The balance struck under the doctrine of qualified immunity has been formulated as a rule: public officials are immune from § 1983 civil rights suits brought by an aggrieved citizen when their “conduct does not violate clearly … Even where the plaintiffs rights and the scope of the officials’ permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a governmental actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for the actor to

Shockley v. Minner

726 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jun 25, 2010

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … Rather, application of qualified immunity turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Doe v.

Walkusch v. Board of County Commissioners Ex Rel. Larimer County

627 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 27, 1986

When a prosecutor acts in any other capacity, the rationale for absolute immunity dissolves and the prosecutor receives only the lesser, qualified immunity.” Gray v. … In order to overcome a motion for summary judgment on the basis of a qualified immunity, a plaintiff in a § 1983 case must show that the constitutional rights for violation of which she is seeking redress were clearly established

Padilla Ex Rel. Padilla v. School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver

35 F. Supp. 2d 1260 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jan 19, 1999

Qualified Immunity As a prefatory matter, the Court notes that the doctrine of qualified immunity only shields officials acting in their individual capacity. See Brandon v. … Thus, the “clearly established” inquiry is two-fold. And “if [this Court] denies [a] defendant qualified immunity, the court [will] identify on the record the defendant’s conduct that violated clearly established law.”

Gill v. Hoadley

261 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, N.D. New York · May 21, 2003

Accordingly, governmental officials sued for damages “are entitled to qualified immunity if 1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or 2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions … Under the governing test, then, the qualified immunity analysis shifts in focus to whether the defendants’ actions either did not violate that clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to have believed

Cahill v. O'DONNELL

7 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 21, 1998

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles public officers to be shielded from liability for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant Valle is entitled to qualified immunity.

Holloway v. Vargas

535 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 8, 2008

than a mere defense to liability. 14 “Because qualified immunity is effectively lost if a case is permitted to go to trial, ‘it should be resolved as early as possible.’ ” 15 Upon a defendant’s assertion of a qualified immunity … Clearly Established Right To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs also must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Christian v. Cecil County, Md.

817 F. Supp. 1279 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 29, 1993

The defendants respond that they are protected by qualified official immunity. … In contrast to Maryland law, actual malice need not be established in order to defeat a qualified immunity defense under § 1983. Procunier v.

Wilkinson v. Ellis

484 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 21, 1980

for the former, but asks us to hold that the latter is subject only to qualified immunity. … Such conduct would be subject to qualified immunity at most. 18 . See Briggs v.

Matasic v. City of Campbell, Ohio

954 F. Supp. 156 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1997

[the] clearly established constitutional rights.” … Individual claims of immunity must be analyzed on a fact-specific, case-by-ease basis to determine whether the constitutional rights were so clearly established when the alleged misconduct was committed that any official

Webster v. City of New York

333 F. Supp. 2d 184 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2004

First, government officials “are immune from liability if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights the existence of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs’ asserted rights were clearly established as of August 31, 2002.

Perrin v. Gentner

177 F. Supp. 2d 1115 · District Court, D. Nevada · Dec 13, 2001

In the past, Ninth Circuit courts focused their initial inquiry in qualified immunity cases on whether a constitutional right was clearly established. Jackson v. City of Bremerton, 268 F.3d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2001). … to qualified immunity.

BT v. David

557 F. Supp. 2d 1262 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Jul 31, 2007

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must establish: (I) that the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (ii) that the constitutional right violated was clearly … the clearly established issue.

Piedra v. True

169 F. Supp. 2d 1239 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 27, 2001

Qualified immunity shields an individual government official performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as his or her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Even if the court were to conclude that plaintiff has established a constitutional violation based upon the uncontroverted facts, plaintiff cannot defeat the second prong of the qualified immunity defense.

P.A. v. City of New York

44 F. Supp. 3d 287 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 11, 2014

Qualified Immunity “[Qualified immunity shields government employees acting in their official capacity from suits for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , unless their conduct violated clearly established rights of which an objectively … Vincent’s employees should be protected by qualified immunity, since, if the jury finds that their conduct was illegal, it violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable official would have known.

Baker v. Gerould

598 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 4, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages where their performance of discretionary functions does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … believed that it would not violate clearly established rights.

Miree v. United States

490 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 20, 1980

Upon this foundation, Manget concludes that he is immune because the plaintiffs have not accused him of any acts that might abrogate his qualified immunity or, alternatively, because even if he is accused of such flagrant … They assert first that the qualified immunity extended public officials is contingent upon their performance of discretionary acts.

Booker v. Ward

905 F. Supp. 483 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 1995

Qualified immunity analysis is a two step inquiry: whether the law was clearly established and, if so, whether the conduct was objectively reasonable. Biddle v. Martin, 992 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1993). … If probable cause did not exist, the officers are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity if their mistake as to the existence of probable cause for an arrest was reasonable despite the pertinent law that was clearly

Diaz-Colon v. Toledo-Davila

922 F. Supp. 2d 189 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 8, 2013

For a plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity, the court must determine if the plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to plead a constitutional violation and if that right was “clearly established” at the time the misconduct … A constitutional right is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes under the Fourth Amendment if “ ‘a consensus of persuasive authority’ exists ‘such that a reasonable officer could not have believed that his

Luthe v. City of Cape May

49 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to