Case law

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Curtis v. Christian County, Kentucky

District Court, W.D. Kentucky · May 24, 2022

However, even if a constitutional violation did occur, the second factor— whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct—still entitles Defendants to qualified immunity. … Sheriff’s Off., 695 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2012) (explaining the “clearly established” right requirement of qualified immunity particularly in relation to the use of a taser).

Markland v. Carter Co Sheriff Dept Swat Team Members

District Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 25, 2025

Clearly Established Right Even if Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … To refute Defendants’ qualified immunity defense, Plaintiff bore the burden of demonstrating that the claimed right was clearly established. Ciminillo, 434 F.3d at 466; see also Mosier v.

McDonald v. City of Troy

District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 3, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12-14 (2015) (reversing denial of qualified immunity because circuit court considered it clearly established that police officer may not “use deadly force against a fleeing felon who d[id] not pose

Burns v. Rekeweg

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 2, 2020

Defendants further contend that Deputy Mendoza is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Burn’s clearly-established rights. … Therefore, Mendoza is entitled to summary judgment based upon the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Brikho v. Detroit, City of

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 31, 2021

Under the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. … Even if Defendants are found to have used excessive force while executing the search warrant, they are still entitled to qualified immunity unless such conduct violated a clearly established right.

Suri

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 14, 2026

When it comes to qualified immunity, “[a] prison official is immune from suit if the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the violation, and thus a reasonable officer would not have known … The right to be protected from inmate-on-inmate violence was clearly established at the time of the complained-of events and has been clearly established for decades. See, e.g., Mayoral v.

Grimes v. Fitts <b><font color="red"> AS OF 10/19/22, FILINGS FROM SHALL BE SCREENED BEFORE BEING DOCKETED [74]</font></b>

District Court, S.D. Texas · May 21, 2024

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to his claims (see Dkt. No. 116 at 1, 3, 16–18). … The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the warden at summary judgment. Id. at [*13– 14].

Renfroe v. Parker

District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Oct 28, 2020

Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (reversing denial of qualified immunity)), amended in part, No. 3:18-CV-609-DPJ-LRA, 2019 WL 3806641 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 13, 2019), aff’d, 974 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2020). … Ct. at 1153 (reversing denial of qualified immunity where facts did not fit clearly established law). The 2020 autopsy report and expert report do not “clearly” change that result either.

Spahr v. Collins

District Court, D. Delaware · Dec 17, 2021

With respect to qualified immunity, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of … To show that a right is “clearly established” for the purposes of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of case law that places the statutory or constitutional question at issue beyond debate

Woods v. Adamski

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 24, 2020

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ … immunity”); Clash, 77 F.3d at 1048 (denying summary judgment on qualified immunity claim because the Court lacked the “given facts” that either do or do not show a violation of “clearly established law”); Pabon v.

Fisher v. Smith

District Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 27, 2023

Therefore, Fisher failed to establish a constitutional violation, and Dr. Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. … See Escobar, 895 F.3d at 393; Romero, 888 F.3d at 176 (holding that to avoid qualified immunity, plaintiff must show violation of constitutional right and right was clearly established at time of

Weeks v. Barkman

District Court, D. Colorado · Sep 13, 2021

Oba is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.4 See Medina v. … to show law was clearly established); cf.

Parks v. Taylor

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For these reasons, and because “the right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing [is] ‘clearly established,’” Mr. Yerby is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Bailey v. Michigan Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 25, 2023

“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Crawford v. … The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, reasoning that a claim for inadequate ventilation was clearly established and plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of their rights.

Adedeji v. Hoder

935 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials from . civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … (2) “whether the right at -issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged ¿misconduct.” .

Williams v. Indiana Department of Child Services

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 9, 2019

The Seventh Circuit has found social workers are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity in various situations. Brokaw v. … clearly established”); Millspaugh v.

Webb v. English

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2021

First, decisions at the district court level, like the one in Baker, are insufficient to clearly establish the law for purposes of a qualified immunity analysis. … Even so, in the context of qualified immunity, posed-but-undecided questions of constitutionality do not clearly establish a right.

Jensen, Madison Jody the Estate of v. Duchesne County

District Court, D. Utah · Sep 15, 2022

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 would have known.’” … Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014) (“The plaintiff “bear[s] the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law.”).

Maini v. Town of Norton

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 25, 2023

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), a qualified immunity case involving allegations of the excessive use of force in restraining an unruly crowd of demonstrators protesting an appearance by the Vice President, the Supreme Court … Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000) (trial court erred in refusing to grant qualified immunity where plaintiff could point to nothing ambit of reasonableness).