Case law

Ward v. City of San Jose

737 F. Supp. 1502 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 25, 1990

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that judgment should be entered in their favor because they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … to qualified immunity.

Morris v. Crow

825 F. Supp. 295 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 23, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In Harlow v. … While the Defendants argue that they are entitled to immunity, Plaintiff in the instant case has alleged that she was demoted in violation of clearly established First Amendment law.

Doe v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

429 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 20, 2006

Defendants nonetheless contend that dismissal is appropriate in this case because the defendants did not violate a clearly established right and are therefore legally entitled to qualified im *944 munity. … Grayeb, 395 F.3d 761 (7th Cir.2005), in which the Seventh Circuit directed the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on a class of one claim, concluding that the right at issue was not clearly established

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

Marcavage v. City of Chicago

635 F. Supp. 2d 829 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 20, 2009

Qualified immunity is designed to shield government agents “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … So they too did not violate any of Marcavage’s “clearly established” rights under the Fourth Amendment, and they too are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

Keeler v. Pea

782 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Jan 9, 1992

Keeler’s third area of disagreement is with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Pea is entitled to qualified immunity. On this point, however, Keeler is objecting to a legal conclusion. … Pea’s immunity, however, is based on the Eleventh Amendment and principles of common law, which provide a valid qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Presley v. Morrison

950 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1996

Therefore Morrison, a probation officer acting in his capacity as such, is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity, which he has asserted. Under the protection of qualified immunity! … light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Abad v. City of Marathon, FL

472 F. Supp. 2d 1374 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 8, 2007

B) Defendant Puto is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Because Plaintiffs Right was not “Clearly Established.” … Defendant Puto claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a “government official ] performing discretionary functions” and did not “violate a ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable

Torres v. Village of Sleepy Hollow

379 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2005

Spanakos, 909 F.Supp. 174, 177-80 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (noting that qualified immunity is available to shield officials from liability for actions that do not violate clearly established federal rights, whereas the separate doctrine … Here, Quinoy’s claim of qualified immunity is trickier to analyze.

Windham v. City of Fairhope

20 F. Supp. 3d 1323 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · May 14, 2014

As such, “[t]o overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, the burden lies with Wind-ham to establish that these defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. .

Allen v. City and County of Honolulu

816 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Jan 27, 1993

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY STANDARD Government officials who perform discretionary functions are protected from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … If “the record in [a] case does not adequately address all issues necessary to determine whether prison officials violated clearly established law, [a court] cannot grant qualified immunity....” Rice, 954 F.2d at 193 .

Anderson v. City of Tampa

555 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 1, 2008

Discussion Officer Bucher contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability as long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

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

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee

35 F. Supp. 3d 1031 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jul 28, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, the constitutional right that Sutter-field alleges was violated was clearly established and defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Simmerman v. Corino

804 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 23, 1992

Absolute Immunity Plaintiffs’ counsel appears oblivious to the well-established doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity. In Imbler v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Barrett v. Wallace

107 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 5, 2000

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless a plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of ‘clearly established’ law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The rationale for the “qualified immunity” doctrine as stated in Harlow v.

Zambrana Torres v. Gonzalez

71 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 14, 1999

should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), they are entitled to qualified immunity because they “believed their actions were lawful in light of the clearly established law and the in *23 formation

Harper v. Booth

382 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish that 1) the official violated a statutory … If the facts do not show a constitutional violation or that the right in question was not clearly established, the officer is immune. Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez , 830 F.3d 38 , 43 (1st Cir. 2016).

Meyer v. Reno

911 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 1996

Sovereign immunity bars any claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity- A. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Prison officials enjoy qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims. Cleavinger v.

Atwood v. Town of Ellington

468 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 3, 2007

Existence of Clearly Established Right a. … The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry applies only if the underlying constitutional right and the theory of supervisory liability were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.