Case law

McLeod-Lopez v. Algarin

603 F. Supp. 2d 330 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Mar 23, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants aver that under the doctrine of qualified immunity, they are immune from suit for money damages in their personal capacity. … In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts shall apply a three-part test: “(1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation; (2) whether the law was clearly established that

Barmore v. Aidala

419 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 7, 2005

Qualified Immunity Defendants next contend that Superintendent Aidala is entitled to qualified immunity because “his actions did not violate a clearly established rights and his actions were objectively reasonable.” … Clearly defendant Aidala participated directly in the constitutional violation and, as such, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. Pltf. Mem. L. p. 11.

Ross v. Keelings

2 F. Supp. 2d 810 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 27, 1998

Even though the act of coercing prisoners to attend meetings where religion is taught violates the Establishment Clause, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this case. … In addressing the issue of qualified immunity, it is ... necessary first to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, then to inquire whether at the time of the alleged violation it was clearly established

Salazar v. Unknown Police Dog Handler (K-9)

District Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 19, 2024

After the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, an additional ' Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. See Dkt. Nos, 72, 75, 78, 94. … .”); see also Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that “this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to

Olson v. Stewart

240 F. Supp. 3d 1251 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 8, 2017

Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable only if it “pres-entís] a legal question concerning a clearly established federal right that … Olson as the nonmoving party, he can assert that there was no clearly established law showing that this arrest was improper.

Stanziale v. County of Monmouth

884 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1995

The court must, however, address Jargowsky’s claim of qualified immunity as it relates to the individual-capacity claims. The modern doctrine of qualified immunity was established in Harlow v. … For immunity to attach, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time the challenged activity took place. Anderson v.

Rogers v. Detroit Police Department

595 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 16, 2009

Qualified Immunity and the Summary Judgment Standard 10 Defendant Harrell argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity for her actions. (Dkt. 47 at 16-21.) … Whether the Right was Clearly Established I suggest that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was sufficiently clearly established at the time of the instant conduct such that summary judgment in favor

Castle v. Marquardt

632 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 2, 2009

Qualified Immunity Finally, defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them from liability for all of plaintiffs claims. … “Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Jones v. City of Hartford

285 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 30, 2003

They also argue that in any case, they are entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … A government official sued in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct is prohibited and if the plaintiffs right not to be subjected to such conduct by the defendant was not clearly established

Stych v. City of Muscatine, Ia

655 F. Supp. 2d 928 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Sep 18, 2009

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known … “Qualified immunity involves the following [ ] inquiry: (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 established at the time

S.N.B. v. Pearland Independent School District

120 F. Supp. 3d 620 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 28, 2014

14 “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 … And a single district court décision from outside this Circuit does not clearly establish any such right.

Bame v. Dillard

647 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2009

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In sum, Defendant Marshal Dillard is not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that blanket strip searches of non-violent, non-felony arrestees were unlawful at the time of the searches at

Almond v. Tarver

468 F. Supp. 2d 886 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Aug 15, 2006

A defendant “is entitled to qualified immunity unless he violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of his conduct.” Blackwell v. … In considering a claim of qualified immunity, the court must make a two-pronged inquiry: “The bifurcated test for qualified immunity is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established

Hedgpeth v. Rahim

213 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2016

That case was easy: no qualified immunity. … Because the Court cannot say that a reasonable officer would have realized a takedown maneuver in these circumstances violated clearly established law, Rahim is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Prison Legal News v. Lehman

272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2003

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … The Court also finds that a prisoner's liberty interest in uncensored communication by catalog and non-subscription bulk mail was not so clearly established as to preclude qualified immunity for the individual defendants

Rivera Torres v. Ortiz Velez

306 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 26, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendant Ortiz seeks qualified immunity in the present case for his decision to deny and defer Plaintiffs request to resign. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials sued in their individual capacity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly-established statutory or constitutional right

Kennedy v. Hardiman

684 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 1988

suspicion” standard was not “clearly established” for searches of correctional officers at correctional institutions. … may be en *545 titled to judgment on his qualified immunity defense after trial.

Leyland v. Edwards

797 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2011

Qualiñed Immunity Even if Leyland’s Bivens claim was not barred due to “special factors,” defendant still has qualified immunity, shielding him from this lawsuit. … Here, the defendant clearly enjoys qualified immunity because he correctly concluded that an unregistered firearm is contraband, see United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 389 (D.C.Cir.1997); Guishard v.

K.B. ex rel. Bourelle v. Perez

178 F. Supp. 3d 1108 · District Court, D. Colorado · Apr 1, 2016

Perez is therefore immune from suit because Plaintiff cannot show that Mr. Perez violated a clearly established right. III. … Martin, 590 Fed.Appx. 726, 731 (10th Cir.2014) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity on a First Amendment claim because visitation limits are not a clearly established violation of the First Amendment).

Summers

District Court, N.D. Georgia · Dec 18, 2025

right and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.” … For that reason, Sluss is entitled to qualified immunity as to the probable cause portion of the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment challenge. , 884 F.3d at 1296 (noting the burden on the plaintiff to establish that qualified