Case law

Sanchez v. City of Littleton

District Court, D. Colorado · Jul 29, 2022

Qualified immunity protects such conduct. Id. If Graham is not enough for clearly established law, Plaintiffs point to two other cases: Valdez v. … Assuming that it does provide some precedential value in the qualified immunity analysis, the facts of Allen are too materially different to create clearly established law.

Creager v. Board of Educ. of Whitley County, Ky.

914 F. Supp. 1457 · District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Feb 9, 1996

However, it has long been clearly established that one may not, acting under color of state law, separate another from employment upon the basis of one’s exercise of the freedoms of speech and/or association. … Thus the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity will be denied.

Reinhart v. City of Maryland Heights

930 F. Supp. 410 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Jun 14, 1996

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity shielding him from liability in damages when his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Therefore, when Pickering 's fact-intensive balancing test is at issue, the asserted First Amendment right "can rarely be considered `clearly established' for purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard."

Fitzgerald v. El Dorado County

94 F. Supp. 3d 1155 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendants D’Agostini and Williams also seek summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF 31-1 at 21. … was clearly established.

Braxton v. Matthews

865 F. Supp. 345 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Oct 19, 1994

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Next, the Court must examine whether Defendant is protected from suit by the doctrine of qualified immunity. In Wiley v. … if the officer’s ‘conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Beckett v. Dept. of Corrections of Delaware

981 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, D. Delaware · Oct 22, 1997

Qualified Immunity 18 In Harlow v. … These defendants’ claims of qualified immunity will be analyzed separately for each alleged violation.

Wrzesinski v. Danielson

231 F. Supp. 2d 611 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Aug 14, 2002

A plaintiff who seeks to hold an official protected by qualified immunity liable must: (1) identify “a clearly established right alleged to have been violated”; and (2) establish that “a reasonable police officer in [the] … However, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. Id. at 1278 .

Lynn v. O'LEARY

264 F. Supp. 2d 306 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 8, 2003

Defendants finally argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on any claim that the arrest and search were unconstitutional. … Next, assuming that a violation of the right is established, I must determine whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated

Day v. Delong

358 F. Supp. 3d 687 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 9, 2019

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct " 'does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " White v. … Here, even if Plaintiff had sufficiently pled a federal constitutional violation, Defendants DeLong and Wagner are entitled to qualified immunity because they are not alleged to have violated clearly established constitutional

Seekamp v. Michaud

936 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 30, 1996

In order to overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a defendant official violated a clearly established constitutional right. … Although it was clearly established that the events in this case constituted a seizure, the deputies are still entitled to qualified immunity if it would not have been apparent to a reasonable official in their position that

McNeil v. City of Easton

694 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 2010

Qualified Immunity The defendant officers contend that qualified immunity shields them from plaintiffs Section 1983 claims. … ’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

Puccini v. United States

978 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 1997

Plaintiff does not dispute the inapplicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, but she contends that those defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and that her due process rights were violated. We disagree. … Plaintiff characterizes the clearly-established right that was violated as the right not to be detained beyond the expiration of her sentence.

Breitkopf v. Gentile

41 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 29, 2014

Qualified Immunity Standard According to the Second Circuit, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if the official’s “conduct did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights … violate clearly established law.”

McShea v. School Board

58 F. Supp. 3d 1325 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2014

are entitled to qualified immunity. … In response, McShea recites an extensive amount of case law on qualified immunity and argues, in a single sentence, that because the burden of proving qualified immunity rests with Defendants, this affirmative defense is

Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District

167 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 2, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that the three individual defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on the basis of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity requires a two-step analysis. … If no constitutional right would have been violated if the allegations were established, then there is no need to continue the qualified immunity analysis. Id.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Jackson v. Dallas School District

954 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 19, 2013

The law provides: The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government officials who are performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Thus, to decide the issue of qualified immunity, we must determine if the facts alleged show a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 15, 2020

Qualified Immunity 25 The “doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability 26 for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … Because Gonzales has not alleged a constitutional 9 deprivation, the Court need not decide whether the right was clearly established. 10 Nonetheless, the Court discusses this prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Monce v. Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

307 F. Supp. 3d 805 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Apr 2, 2018

The qualified immunity inquiry involves determining (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred and (2) whether the right infringed was clearly established. McKinley v. … When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, "plaintiff has the burden of showing that a right is clearly established." Everson v.

McGreal v. Ostrov

227 F. Supp. 2d 939 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 21, 2002

Qualified Immunity: Saucier recently reiterated that qualified immunity is a two step analysis. See 121 S.Ct. at 2156. … Snooks are also entitled to qualified immunity because the law surrounding McGreal’s claim was not clearly established at the time of the events. On this point, the Supreme Court’s Saucier analysis is critical.