Case law

Stamps-Bey v. Thomas

618 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 20, 1985

Fitzgerald, supra, the Court reformulated the doctrine of qualified immunity by establishing an objective standard against which to measure the actions of a federal official accused of constitutional torts. … Under the holding of Harlow , a government official’s immunity from liability depends on the objective reasonableness of his conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.

Feminist Majority Found. v. Univ. of Mary Wash.

283 F. Supp. 3d 495 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 19, 2017

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Here, the constitutional right that Hurley allegedly violated was not clearly established. Accordingly, the Court could also grant the motion to dismiss Count III based on qualified immunity.

Lewis v. Drouillard

704 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 22, 2010

On the other hand, qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions, ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … the establishment of probable cause.

Simmons v. Charleston Housing Authority

881 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Mar 22, 1995

Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity from this lawsuit because the “right” asserted by Plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time the right was allegedly deprived. … Qualified immunity from civil damages is granted to state actors who do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (emphasis added). Harlow v.

LOHARSINGH v. City and County of San Francisco

696 F. Supp. 2d 1080 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 11, 2010

As it is clearly established that probable cause, or at least, reasonable suspicion, was required to detain Plaintiff, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. III. ANALYSIS A. … Standard Governing Qualified Immunity Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if a constitutional violation occurred, governmental officials are immune if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory

Swain v. Spinney

932 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 5, 1996

In any event, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Swain’s lawsuit. … A police officer has the benefit of qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can establish that the right she asserts was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. St. Hilaire v.

Brennan v. City of White Plains

67 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 5, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct either “did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing

Call v. Badgley

254 F. Supp. 3d 1051 · District Court, N.D. California · May 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is an entitlement, provided to government officials in the exercise of their duties, not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. Saucier v. … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident

Lyons v. Holden-Selby

729 F. Supp. 2d 914 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 6, 2010

Although the Magistrate Judge did not reach the second part of a qualified immunity analysis, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … 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 a reasonable person

Echols v. UNIFIED GOV. OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS

399 F. Supp. 2d 1201 · District Court, D. Kansas · Nov 15, 2005

Overview of the Qualified Immunity Standard Under section 1983, an official sued in his or her individual capacity has qualified immunity from suit if the official’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity is not simply a defense to liability, it is an immunity from suit. See Douglas v.

Feliciano v. County of Suffolk

419 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2005

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability resulting from the performance of their discretionary functions only where their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In order to establish entitlement to qualified immunity, Defendants must demonstrate that: (1) their actions did not clearly violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe

Guardado v. United States

744 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendant Allen additionally argues that, with respect to the Bivens claims, he is protected by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability for conduct that does not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable person would have known about. Harlow v.

Branham v. May

428 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Apr 17, 2006

Governmental, Official and Qualified Immunity At the outset, Defendants assert that the claims against them are barred by governmental, official and qualified immunity. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Eberle v. City of Newton

289 F. Supp. 2d 1269 · District Court, D. Kansas · Oct 30, 2003

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers performing arrests, unless the officers violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … This court finds that the level of force used by McMichael was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances, that the right to be free from such force was clearly established, and that qualified immunity is inapplicable

Doe Hm v. City of Creve Coeur, Mo.

666 F. Supp. 2d 988 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified immunity shields "government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … right was violated; and (2) that the constitutional right was "clearly established" when the deprivation took place.

Gwin v. Curry

161 F.R.D. 70 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 12, 1995

AD 1 seeks to assert qualified immunity for Curry because “a reasonable police officer in the position of the Defendant reasonably could have believed that his conduct was within the constitutional limits that were clearly … established at the time.”

Nelson v. Strawn

897 F. Supp. 252 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Aug 25, 1995

Qualified Immunity The magistrate judge recommended that Officer Strawn be shielded by qualified immunity. … Strawn had raised the issue of qualified immunity before it was determined that he was being sued only in his official capacity, which was established by Order of the magistrate judge on November 15, 1994.

Jones v. Frederick County Board of Education

689 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 20, 1988

A state’s general waiver of sovereign immunity does not qualify as a waiver of its constitutional immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. … To establish a continuing violation, however, the plaintiff must establish that the unconstitutional or illegal act was a part of ‘standard operating procedure,’ a fixed and continuing practice.

Benisek v. Lamone

263 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jan 31, 2017

Applying established principles of First Amendment retaliation cases, the Court distilled the three ele *553 ments that Plaintiffs will be called upon to prove in this case: 1. … seeking damages; those circumstances qualified the breadth of Tenney’s holding, in the Gillock Court’s view.

Van Cleave v. City of Marysville, Kansas

185 F. Supp. 2d 1212 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 9, 2002

actions taken were not objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.’ ” Id. … immunity.