Case law

Renfroe v. Parker

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jun 7, 2019

clearly established law.” … at 1153 (reversing denial of qualified immunity where facts did not fit clearly established law).4 2.

Bethel v. Warden

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 2022

Qualified Immunity. Bethel also asks the Court to reconsider its decision granting Defendant Smith qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonably

Ahmed v. Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 17, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendant also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which shields officials from civil liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly … (finding that the rights at issue were clearly established in 1975); see also Mills, 869 F.3d at 486-87 (denying qualified immunity on malicious prosecution, fabrication, and withholding evidence claims to DNA analyst

Doe Ex Rel. Magee v. Covington County School District Ex Rel. Board of Education

637 F. Supp. 2d 392 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Apr 27, 2009

Standard of Review 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 … Even if the Defendants’ Actions Violated a Constitutional Right, the Right Was Not Clearly Established at the Time of the Incidents Giving Rise to this Case “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct

Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 28, 2021

Co., 123 F.R.D. 198, 201 (M.D.N.C. 1998) (work product doctrine is merely qualified immunity from discovery “not having an intrinsic value outside the litigation arena.”). … Ill. 2000) (“[D]escribing a document as ‘legal advice’ . . . is not the same as establishing that [it is] immune from discovery.”).

Ortiz v. Hasper

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 12, 2022

When an official asserts a qualified immunity defense, courts consider whether “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established … The difference is that “the qualified immunity inquiry goes on to ask whether any constitutional violation was clearly established.” Jackson v. Tellado, 236 F.

Freeman v. Sansom

District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 16, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is intended to shield public officials from liability from civil damages when their actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly … App’x 238, 242 (2d Cir. 2010) (“To be denied summary judgment on qualified immunity, an official must violate clearly established law.”) (citing Harlow v.

McCrae v. City of Salem

District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 10, 2023

qualified immunity at this stage.” … An officer who has violated the Fourth Amendment may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity so long as the officer did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Ramirez v. New Mexico Department of Corrections

District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 16, 2023

Plaintiff has also not shown that Defendant Gonzales violated clearly established First Amendment law. Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant Gonzales raised qualified immunity in his summary judgment motion. … Glanz, 813 F.3d 938, 952 n.10 (10th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff has burden under qualified immunity to show violation of clearly established law, even when defendant does not expressly discuss clearly established law); see also

Monaghan v. Moates

District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 20, 2023

Moreover, when the Aguirre court discussed the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, it did not mention arguable probable cause and instead analyzed whether the plaintiff had a clearly established right to … Because Monaghan has established a genuine dispute over whether Williams and Moates violated his clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, neither Williams nor Moates are entitled to qualified immunity at this

Gibson v. Idleberg

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2025

was clearly established at the relevant time.” … Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (“An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.”

Sherrod v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods’ constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Hafiz v. Yates

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2020

Hines, 914 F.3d at 1230. 1 Ninth Circuit, like the courts below, proceeded “straight to the second prong of the qualified 2 immunity analysis: whether a right to not face a heightened risk was ‘clearly established’ … Katz, 533 U.S. 4 194, 201 (2001) (establishing the two-part inquiry for qualified immunity: (1) whether the 5 alleged facts violate the Constitution, and (2) if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was 6 clearly

McMahon v. City of Beardstown

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2024

But where the law was clearly established, both qualified immunity questions must be addressed. Id. … McMahon’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. As a result, the Court cannot find that the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Nettles-Bey v.

Douglas v. University of Hawaii

District Court, D. Hawaii · Aug 7, 2023

In other words, an official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a law that was clearly established at the relevant time showed that his conduct was unlawful and “a reasonable official could not have believed” otherwise … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (qualified immunity protects officials unless “the law clearly proscribed the[ir] actions”).

ESTATE OF FRANCES D. DEROSA v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2025

. ¶¶ 79, 80, 94.)2 On May 12, 2023, Judge Quraishi granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that because no clearly established right was violated, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … “Officials demonstrate they are entitled to qualified immunity only if they can show that a reasonable person in their position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct

Sanchez v. The Village of Wheeling

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 30, 2020

Evanston Defendants seek qualified immunity for Detective Bush, arguing that the right at issue was not clearly established. Doc. 49 at 4-9. … To avoid qualified immunity, Sánchez must show that the right was clearly established “in a particularized sense, rather than at a high level of generality.” Alicea v.

Doe v. Gray

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 1, 2022

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless a claimant proves two elements: first, that the official violated a constitutional right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the … Argument on probable cause collapses into the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The right to be free from warrantless arrests without probable cause has long been clearly established. Burritt v.

Johnson v. Dobbins

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2021

“To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified- immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that ‘plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … Here, Plaintiff alleges that the County Defendants violated clearly established law by placing him in solitary confinement without justification. (Doc. No. 67 at 10).

White v. Miyares

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2025

As the Supreme Court has stated, “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v.