Case law

Pc v. Connecticut Department of Children and Families

662 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 24, 2009

Such officials enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either: “(1) their conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … As previously noted, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Brown v. Chiappetta

806 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 23, 2011

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [police] officers from personal liability under § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Qualified immunity is also warranted because the right to disclosure, as interpreted by Brown, was not clearly established at the time.

Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library

862 F. Supp. 2d 1054 · District Court, D. Montana · May 30, 2012

Qualified Immunity of City Officers Spreadbury disputes Judge Lynch’s finding that Officer Snavely, who investigated him for criminally trespassing on Library property, is entitled to qualified immunity. … Officer Snavely is thus entitled to qualified immunity for his decision to investigate Spreadbury for trespass.

Breidenbach v. Bolish

6 F. Supp. 2d 1161 · District Court, D. Colorado · Jun 3, 1998

Once a government official raises the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiff must “come forward with facts or allegations to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that law was clearly established … issues of fact remain that would defeat his or her claim of qualified immunity.

K.T. v. Pittsburg Unified School District

219 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 8, 2016

That said, sovereign immunity—unlike qualified immunity—“partakes of the nature of jurisdictional bar” and may be raised for the first time, well, anytime. See Edelman v. … K.T. is clearly a “qualified individual with a disability” under both statutes—and the District does not suggest otherwise, see MTD at 12-15; Reply at 14-16.

Simmons v. Justice

87 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2000

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages, but only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.

DiLegge v. Gleason

131 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 13, 2001

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their action either 1) did not violate clearly established law, or 2) was objectively reasonable.

Green v. City of Mount Vernon

96 F. Supp. 3d 263 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2015

For claims brought under federal law, “[a] police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for his discretionary actions if either (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity may also be a defense to an excessive force claim.

Lewis v. Eufaula City Board of Education

922 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Dec 4, 2012

The second asserted defense is the doctrine of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity, which was once called “good-faith immunity,” see, e.g., Gomez v.

Lyle v. Dodd

857 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 22, 1994

Accordingly, defendant Dodd is entitled to qualified immunity for any “arrest” 5 of plaintiff Lyle, b. … Because this standard establishes no bright line, qualified immunity applies unless application of this standard would inevitably lead every reasonable officer in defendant Dodd’s position to conclude the force was unlawful

Seattle Affiliate of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression & the Criminalization of a Generation v. City of Seattle

430 F. Supp. 2d 1185 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2006

When a defendant claims qualified immunity from civil damages, plaintiff is required to show that the official has violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … clearly established at the time he or she acted.

Phillips v. County of Orange

894 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 11, 2012

Moreover, when a qualified immunity defense is asserted, a court should consider the specific scope and nature of a defendant’s qualified immunity claim. … See, e.g., Stoot, 582 F.3d at 922 (finding that in-school interview of child suspected of abusing another violated Fourth Amendment but granting qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the officer could

Dockery v. Unified School District No. 231

406 F. Supp. 2d 1219 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 3, 2006

Yoho’s claim of qualified immunity. In evaluating Mr. Yoho’s claim of qualified immunity, the court conducts a two-part inquiry. … See Ramirez, 222 F.3d at 1244 (holding the district court properly denied the defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for qualified immunity because the law is clearly established that racial dis *1226 crimination in employment violates

Barnes v. Ross

926 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 2013

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Thus, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs equal protection claim on the basis of qualified immunity is denied, without prejudice to raising the issue of qualified immunity at later stages of the litigation.

Star v. Gramley

815 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 26, 1993

Regardless, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff has no clearly established right to cross-dress in prison. … Regardless, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff had no clearly established right to cross-dress in prison.

Jones v. Manson

393 F. Supp. 1016 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 7, 1975

Although rejecting the claim of absolute immunity, the Court did recognize the need for some form of qualified immunity in the following terms: “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive … Commissioner Manson’s testimony clearly established that he alone was factually and legally responsible for both the decisions to transfer the plaintiff and to delay the hearing for the two-month period.

Wang v. Delphin-Rittmon

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 24, 2023

They argue that they are entitled to a defense of qualified immunity because Wang has not alleged facts to show that they violated a clearly established federal right. … Thus, in order for a plaintiff to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendants violated a right of the plaintiff that was clearly established law at the time of the conduct in question

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.

Lee v. City of South Charleston

668 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 28, 2009

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity bars section 1983 actions against government officials in their individual capacity. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 472-73 , 105 S.Ct. 873 , 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985). … The test for qualified immunity is a two-pronged inquiry.

Ysais v. NEW MEXICO, JUDICIAL STANDARD COM'N

616 F. Supp. 2d 1176 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 31, 2009

rights were clearly established at the time. … Both absolute judicial immunity and qualified immunity provide immunity from suit. See Mitchell v.