Case law

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

246 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified immunity Police officers are immune from suit where their actions did not violate clearly established law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243–44 (2009). … At the summary judgment stage on a claim of qualified immunity, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing qualified immunity—in this case, Plaintiff. Id.

Rosen v. County of Suffolk, NY

305 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 25, 2004

As noted supra, however, even assuming the Plaintiffs claims make out a Fourth Amendment violation, Defendant Schreiber and the officers are clearly entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if: “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not

Wittmer v. Peters

904 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 1995

Therefore, since Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that Defendants were on notice that their actions violated clearly established law, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Regardless, because there is no clearly established authority that could have placed Defendants on notice that their actions violated the law (assuming they did in fact violate the law), qualified immunity shields Defendants

Habeeb v. Castloo

434 F. Supp. 2d 899 · District Court, D. Montana · Jun 2, 2006

clearly established at the time it was taken. … Habeeb must show the officers’ actions were unreasonable in light of legal rules clearly established when they took the challenged action if he is to defeat the qualified immunity defense.

Payne v. DeKalb County

414 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 25, 2004

Qualified immunity confers complete protection upon government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Hence, the claim remains, but no qualified immunity exists. 13 .

Henkle v. Gregory

150 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, D. Nevada · Feb 28, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right for a gay student to speak about or express his sexual preference in a school setting (Doc. # 27, … Determining whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity “requires a two-part inquiry: (1) Was the law governing the state official’s conduct clearly established?

Nocera v. New York City Fire Commissioner

921 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 1996

Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was “objectively reasonable” for him to … immunity because the law was clearly established, as the parties agree, that public employers must have reasonable suspicion before requiring an individualized drug test.

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.

Lonsdale v. Egger

525 F. Supp. 610 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 26, 1981

Those remaining, Defendants Egger, Voskuil, and Rosenstein, would be cloaked with qualified immunity when acting within the sphere of their official responsibility. … established constitutional rights.

Middlebrook v. City of Bartlett

341 F. Supp. 2d 950 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Mar 7, 2003

“Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, in order to defeat Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show: (1) that a clearly established right has been violated; and (2) the official would have known that their conduct violates that

Mallory v. City of Riverside

35 F. Supp. 3d 910 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 4, 2014

To overcome a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff: (1) identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated; and (2) establish that a reasonable officer in the … Mallory’s home, qualified immunity applies. Further, as a conspiracy cannot be established, nor did Ms.

Harrington v. Grayson

764 F. Supp. 464 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 30, 1991

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Court established and defined the parameters of the qualified immunity defense for state officials who were sued in their individual capacities. … Suits Against State Officials in their Individual Capacity are not Barred by Sovereign Immunity: Prior to Will , it was clearly established that suits against state officials in their individual capacity do not seek money

Flenner v. Sheahan

920 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 1996

to qualified immunity.” … Accordingly, Sheahan is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they possessed a clearly established right to avoid patronage dismissal. See Harlow v.

Marshall v. Gates

812 F. Supp. 1050 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 15, 1993

B) Qualified Immunity for Public Officials When performing discretionary functions, governmental officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless, in taking the challenged action, they violate “clearly established statutory … Finally, when qualified immunity is at issue, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a “fact-specific constitutional right was clearly established.” Davis v.

Hussein v. City of Perrysburg

647 F. Supp. 2d 838 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 10, 2009

Qualified Immunity The Husseins sue Thielen and Klag in their individual capacity, and as such, the defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity. … Based on the following, I find the two constitutional violations in issue to be clearly established such that Thielen and Klag are not entitled to qualified immunity- *857 With regard to the Husseins’ procedural due process

Cooper v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2021

Clearly Established Right The second question hinges on whether the takedown and strikes “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (finding that kicking suspect after he was on ground and subdued violated clearly established law).

Ramirez v. City of Reno

925 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. Nevada · Apr 29, 1996

clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity does not become relevant until the plaintiff pleads facts which, if proved, would establish a constitutional violation.

Cotton v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

Gutierrez v. Joy

502 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials per *361 forming discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In sum, Defendants have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as Gutierrez’s right to due process was clearly established and it was not objectively reasonable for Defendants to believe their conduct

Lawrence v. Madison County

176 F. Supp. 3d 650 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Mar 31, 2016

Under federal law, the qualified immunity doctrine “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … For these failures, Green and Thomas are not entitled to qualified immunity. Kentucky law grants qualified immunity only to officers performing “discretionary acts or functions.” Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522.