Case law

Allen v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction

128 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 19, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants next argue that Ms. Akram, in her individual capacity, is entitled to qualified immunity. Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to seek qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity extends to individuals performing discretionary functions unless their actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.

Velazquez v. Figueroa Gomez

783 F. Supp. 31 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 27, 1991

Qualified Immunity Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity is frivolous. Plaintiffs in this case were dismissed in 1989. … Since the First Circuit has held that in 1985 it was clearly established that a transitory employee whose term had expired was protected from politically-based non-renewal, see Cheveras Pacheco v.

National Coalition for Students With Disabilities v. Bush

170 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Feb 20, 2001

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, officials cannot be held liable unless their actions violated clearly established law. … Plaintiffs have not, however, identified any other clearly established law that defendants allegedly violated.

Aureguy v. Town of Tiburon

825 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 29, 1993

Plaintiffs seek a ruling that defendants are not entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity in this matter. … Qualified Immunity A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly illegal official acts insofar as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Tarhuni v. Holder

8 F. Supp. 3d 1253 · District Court, D. Oregon · Mar 26, 2014

Thus, to avoid qualified immunity, the right allegedly violated must have been ‘“clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Accordingly, the Court concludes on this record that the Individual Capacity Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in light of the fact that Plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a cognizable, “clearly established

Carrero v. Farrelly

280 F. Supp. 3d 774 · District Court, D. Maryland · Dec 1, 2017

Further, the Court found that Officer Farrelly was not entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, as alleged in the Complaint, violated clearly established law at the time he stopped Plaintiff. … Counsel makes the same error in addressing Officer Farrelly’s qualified immunity defense.

Rex v. City of Milwaukee

321 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 10, 2004

Qualified Immunity The officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The burden of establishing the existence of a clearly established constitutional right is on the plaintiff, and it is a heavy one because qualified immunity is designed to shield from civil liability “all but the plainly

Foxworthy v. Buetow

492 F. Supp. 2d 974 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 22, 2007

Qualified Immunity WCCD claims that it is entitled to qualified immunity on Foxworthy’s First Amendment retaliation claim. … is clearly established.”

Stubblefield v. City of Jackson, Miss.

871 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 2, 1994

That is to say, the parameters of permissible voluntary affirmative action programs are far from being clearly established. … In the court’s opinion, Mayor Ditto is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rabin v. Cook County

837 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 29, 2011

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Flinn v. Block

620 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 4, 1985

Defendants allege that they are immune from damage claims because their conduct did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." See Harlow v. … Because the law was not clearly established at that time, the Court will grant defendants' motions for summary judgment based upon defendants' qualified immunity. See Schieffer v. Block, 601 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mo.1984).

Michel v. Beutler

888 F. Supp. 2d 861 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2012

That being so, I find the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity to be without merit. The Sixth Circuit enunciated the elements of qualified immunity in Cherrington v. … Despite the defendants’ contentions about qualified immunity, the law is and has long been clearly established with regard to the constitutional violations which a jury could find the defendants perpetrated, namely: • Presenting

Nieto v. Kapoor

61 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 4, 1999

Kapoor has asserted qualified immunity, arguing that his conduct toward each of the Plaintiffs has not violated clearly established law. … established’ and cleared the qualified immunity hurdle.

Doherty v. Delaware

424 F. Supp. 2d 729 · District Court, D. Delaware · Mar 31, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are “entitled to qualified immunity from any damages as plaintiff cannot establish a constitution violation that was clearly established and under the circumstances the defendants … (D.I. 20 at 13) Government officials performing discretionary functions are immune from liability for civil damages when their conduct does “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Foster v. City of Oakland

675 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 14, 2009

Qualified Immunity Even if a law enforcement officer violates an individual’s constitutional *1005 rights, the officer may be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a public official from individual liability for civil damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 so long as his conduct does not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Snodgrass v. Williams

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2020

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v. … Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the application of a heightened pleading standard for § 1983 cases involving qualified immunity)); see also Keith v.

Hornfeld v. City of North Miami Beach

29 F. Supp. 2d 1357 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 9, 1998

Because qualified immunity shields public officials from involvement in non-meritorious suits that interfere with the performance of their official functions, entitlement to qualified immunity must be determined at the earliest … Qualified Immunity Conferred on Public Officials The Supreme Court established a test to determine whether a public official can claim qualified immunity. See Harlow v.

HOOTSTEIN v. Collins

679 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 14, 2010

clearly established at the time of defendants’ actions. … to qualified immunity. 5 .

Yoder v. Ryan

318 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2004

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which protects public officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … These are clearly established rights any reasonable person would be aware of. Mr. Frederking has not established that he is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Strength v. Hubert

670 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Sep 25, 1987

’s view that the qualified immunity defense afforded the complaining officer adequate protection to § 1983 liability. … Though this Court did follow decisions from other courts in extending the absolute immunity established in Briscoe v.