Case law

Wilderness v. Neal

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 22, 2025

Qualified immunity Lastly, Sgt. … Haskell and Officer Sanders argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established law. ECF 103 at 7-9.

Burke v. Vision Government Solutions, Inc.

District Court, D. Connecticut · Jan 15, 2020

“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 … the clearly established law.”

Ortiz v. Mora

District Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 10, 2019

However, Mora violated no clearly established law and therefore is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also holds that Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. … “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. Pauly, 137 S.

Johnson v. Wilfong

District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 2025

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person [in their positions … State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Although the defendant bears the burden of proof for this affirmative defense [of qualified immunity], the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law was clearly established

Turkmen v. Ashcroft

915 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 15, 2013

Qualified Immunity The allegations against the MDC defendants state a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants also suggest that they are entitled to qualified immunity because in 2001 it was not clearly established that Section 1985 applied to federal officials.

Oxley v. Contra Costa County Sheriff Department

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 31, 2025

Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 105 16 (2018) (finding officer entitled to qualified immunity against an excessive force claim 17 because there was no clearly established law by which any competent officer would have 18 known … Defendants assert that 17 Defendant Jones is entitled to qualified immunity based on the undisputed facts and the 18 absence of any controlling authority clearly establishing that his conduct was unlawful. 19 Id

Phillips v. Pike

District Court, W.D. Missouri · Sep 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right … Deputy Childers is entitled to qualified immunity on this initial entry and seizure claim because his conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate clearly established law.

White v. Stone

District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 13, 2022

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … clearly established law.”

United States v. Abdalla

327 F. Supp. 3d 1079 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Aug 29, 2018

Greene , 250 F.3d 471 , 480 (6th Cir. 2001) ("Circuit precedent clearly establishes that *1087 the affiant need only specify that the confidential informant has given accurate information in the past to qualify as reliable … While the address above the judge's signature was wrong, that was clearly the result of Agent Brandon Gooch cutting and pasting from an earlier warrant.

Miller v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 14, 2025

“The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Both are entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Thunderhawk v. Morton, County of, North Dakota

District Court, D. North Dakota · Nov 6, 2023

established prong of qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case. … Plaintiffs have failed to provide a factually similar case sufficient to support the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Lipkin

District Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026

“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.” City of Escondido v. … Moreover, in the First Amendment context, the Second Circuit has recognized that qualified immunity is not available where (1) “specific intent of a defendant is an element of plaintiff’s claim under clearly established

Sockwell v. Town of Calhoun City

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 5, 2019

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right and, if so, (2) whether

Doe v. Oregon State University

District Court, D. Oregon · Jul 13, 2022

Additionally, the Court is unaware of any case indicating a district court opinion alone, without at least some appellate court precedent, qualifies as clearly established precedent in the qualified immunity context. … Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a clearly established property interest in his continued enrollment at OSU, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Moulton v. Prosper

District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 11, 2019

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the officer deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged offense. See Saucier v. … To circumvent the Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity, the Plaintiff therefore bears the burden of establishing that the officers violated his “clearly established” constitutional right to be free from the

Connelly v. Hall

District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 15, 2025

Once qualified immunity is raised by a defendant, and it is established that the government official was acting within his/her discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the Court need not address whether the law was clearly established. IV.

Williams v. Zachary

District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Aug 27, 2021

Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.”) (quoting Mace v. … Qualified immunity calls for a bifurcated test in which the court must first determine (1) “whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established

(PC) Dawson v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2022

It is unclear from the allegations 19 that plaintiff qualifies for a medical order for single-cell status and, regardless, the complaint 20 establishes that custody staff has determined that plaintiff qualifies for single-cell … Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (statutory 27 language permits sua sponte, pre-service dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity as well as 28 absolute immunity).

Jones v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages 21 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 22 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Second, 27 the Court must determine whether the right was clearly established.

Davis v. City of Covington

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 13, 2024

Under federal law, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the caselaw existing at the time of their actions clearly established that they violated the … And as a matter of law, Lusardi is entitled to qualified immunity regarding this use of force because Davis has again failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that Lusardi’s conduct was clearly established as having