Case law

Franz v. United States

591 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1984

In the face of this principle, the plaintiff cannot successfully contend that the defendants have violated any clearly established rights of Mr. … Under this formulation, any activities concerning the administration of the Program would qualify as protected activities, and defendants could invoke the qualified immunity doctrine.

Starlight Sugar Inc. v. Soto

86 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 14, 2000

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Guffey v. … Harlow establishes a two-part test for determining qualified immunity. First, the Court must decide if the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred. See Harlow v.

Strosnider v. City of Nampa

196 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, D. Idaho · Jul 25, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants seek qualified immunity on Strosnider’s constitutional claims. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Gunter v. Cicero

364 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2019

"A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory *139 or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … Here, because the court already determined Defendants violated Plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional rights, only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is at issue. 1.

RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio

686 F. Supp. 2d 684 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Feb 19, 2010

Even if the government official’s conduct violates a clearly established right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Tex. … Once a government officer pleads the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defense by establishing that the employee’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established

Lacey v. Borough of Darby, Pa.

618 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 20, 1985

Defendants invoked the defense of qualified immunity. … The Third Circuit held that the sole inquiry relevant to the qualified immunity issue was “whether Losch had clearly established rights to petition the government in the manner that he did and to be free of malicious prosecution

Gann v. Schramm

606 F. Supp. 1442 · District Court, D. Delaware · Apr 18, 1985

Therefore, the statute cannot be relied upon as clearly established law for the purposes of defeating qualified immunity. … Com’rs, 747 F.2d 139 (3d Cir.1984), the Third Circuit addressed the issue of how “clearly established” law must be in order for it to defeat qualified immunity.

King v. Avila

760 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 27, 1989

Such an allegation involves the issue of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity exists because public officers require some form of immunity from suits for damages. Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d 441 (7th Cir.1989). … ; and 2) were the constitutional standards clearly established at the time in question? Id. at 554 .

Carrillo v. Penn National Gaming, Inc.

172 F. Supp. 3d 1204 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 23, 2016

General statements of law are insufficient to satisfy the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). … ’ claims based on qualified immunity.

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo County

61 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 19, 2014

Clearly Established Rights in the Qualified Immunity Analysis. … Fitzgerald, when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly-established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

Thomas v. Calero

824 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 20, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity serves to protect public officials from liability in section 1983 actions insofar as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A defendant may invoke a qualified-immunity defense if he can demonstrate that his conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” at the time

Sterling-Ward Ex Rel. Sterling v. Tujaka

414 F. Supp. 2d 727 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 14, 2006

that right was clearly established.” … The Second Circuit concluded that the law does not provide a clear answer to this question, thus the right is not “clearly established” and the defendants were, as a result, entitled to qualified immunity.

Estate of Brown v. Barian

43 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Apr 2, 1999

They also claim that, in any event, they are shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Graham v. … After all, even if the plaintiffs’ complaint had set out a constitutional violation, the defendants are entitled to the qualified immunity defense unless the constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in

Abordo v. State of Hawaii

902 F. Supp. 1220 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 25, 1995

Whether an official is immune “turns on the *1229 objective reasonableness of their conduct in light of clearly established law, not on their subjective good faith.” Bateson v. … In order to avoid a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must prove that the law clearly established that the official’s actions were unlawful at the time of the alleged misconduct. Romero v.

Ratliff v. City of Shannon Hills

52 F. Supp. 3d 904 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 16, 2014

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 … Accordingly, Chief Hale and Officer Lucky are entitled to qualified immunity as to Ms. Ratliff’s § 1983 claims, and the Court need not determine whether Ms. Ratliffs constitutional rights were clearly established.

Kirkham v. Whatcom County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 9, 2025

Qualified Immunity 8 County Defendants also assert Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because they are 9 entitled to qualified immunity. … To begin, qualified immunity is a defense to liability only for 10 those sued in their individual capacities under § 1983.

Thomas v. Zaharek

289 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Oct 20, 2003

Defendants may benefit from qualified immunity if plaintiff is unable to establish any of these three steps. … Clearly Established Even if the Court were to assume that Thomas’s due process rights were not satisfied through the numerous meetings and hearings conducted by Meehan and Zaha-rek, the next step in the qualified immunity

Bibbins v. City of Baton Rouge

489 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 11, 2007

See e.g., Geter, 849 F.2d at 1559 (noting that “a police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he ... deliberately conceals exculpatory evidence, for such activity violates clearly established constitutional … qualified immunity).

Komondy v. Gioco

253 F. Supp. 3d 430 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 25, 2017

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 … take the action alleged by the Plaintiff did not violate any clearly established law prohibiting such action.”). .

Gotay Sanchez v. Pereira

343 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 29, 2004

In terms of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it has been clearly established *72 that, for Eleventh Amendment purposes, the Commonwealth is treated as if it were a state; consequently, the Eleventh Amendment bars any suit … Qualified Immunity Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, the Court employs a three-part test when determining if a public official is entitled to qualified immunity.