Case law

Morron v. City of Middletown

464 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 4, 2006

a defense of qualified immunity. … Generally, qualified immunity insulates government officials from personal liability when they perform discretionary duties pursuant to their official functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Goldberg v. Junion

208 F. Supp. 3d 977 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Sep 23, 2016

Defendants contend summary judgment in their favor is required because they are entitled to qualified immunity. A. Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity is a “powerful shield,” Gregorich v. … This right was clearly established by the Seventh Circuit in Berkowitz in 1991, and then reaffirmed in Sparing in 2001, long before this incident took place in 2013.

Graham v. Carter

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 12, 2021

The defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional under clearly established law. ECF 61 at 19-21. However, this argument fails as to Sgt. … Zimmerman cannot avoid trial on qualified immunity grounds.

Hickey-McAllister v. British Airways

978 F. Supp. 133 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 1997

Anton further argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Bivens claim because plaintiff has not alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Anton is “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Dorsey v. Ruth

222 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 23, 2002

Further, the time frame established by Gruber’s statement does not clearly support Dorsey’s position. … Qualified Immunity Although Officer Ruth did not raise the issue, he enjoys qualified immunity against Dorsey’s suit.

Gmyr-Maez v. Schneider

169 F. Supp. 3d 1172 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 11, 2016

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the relevant law was clearly established. … The second part of the qualified immunity inquiry for the Court to consider is whether the law on this issue was clearly established.

Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.

291 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2018

A valid qualified immunity defense can foreclose liability under § 1983. … "Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

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.

Zaire v. Dalsheim

698 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1988

under the Eleventh Amendment; the doctrine of qualified immunity; and failure to sufficiently allege causation. … The defense 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

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.

Mastroianni v. Deering

879 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 1994

Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the rights Defendants allegedly violated were clearly established. … Defendants have raised the defense of qualified immunity, requiring the Court to determine whether the rights Defendants allegedly violated were clearly established. a.

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.

Evangelou v. District of Columbia

901 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity 12 protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … use of his answers in a criminal proceeding has been clearly established since 1968.

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.

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

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.

Robinson v. Farley

264 F. Supp. 3d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2017

“have invoked the affirmative defense of qualified immunity . . . in name only[.]” … Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the MPD Officers have invoked the defense of qualified immunity in name only, and as a result, the purported “qualified immunity” basis for dismissal fails for the same reason

Mendia v. Garcia

165 F. Supp. 3d 861 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 26, 2016

Qualified Immunity Having established the availability of Bivens , the Court considers Defendants’ argument that Chang and Garcia are entitled to qualified immunity. Opp’n to Mot. to Am. at 7; Agents MTD at 26-28. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Walton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

533 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 2008

“[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Levantino v. New York State Police

56 F. Supp. 3d 191 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 3, 2014

Of course, even in the absence of probable cause, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where “(1) [her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The defense will succeed only where entitlement to qualified immunity can be established “based [solely] on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir.2004).