Case law

Madison v. Houston Independent School District

47 F. Supp. 2d 825 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 22, 1999

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, governmental employees, when sued in their individual capacities, are immune from suit when their actions are objectively reasonable as measured by reference to clearly established … Whether the act complained of by the plaintiff violates clearly established rights is essentially a legal question. Id. A two-step process is used by the court in analyzing qualified immunity.

Marr v. Maine Department of Human Services

215 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, D. Maine · Jul 9, 2002

According to the complaint, Logan Marr, as an involuntary dependent in the custody of the DHS and in its substitute care program, had a clearly established, fundamental Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment (substantive … Most government officials are entitled to only qualified immunity, but officials performing judicial, legislative, or prosecutorial functions have been afforded absolute immunity.

Henrise v. Horvath

94 F. Supp. 2d 765 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 21, 2000

The Individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity and contend that Plaintiff has not pleaded his claim with the requisite specificity to defeat their entitlement to qualified immunity. … Defendants in essence seek an order requiring Plaintiff to file a reply to their assertion of qualified immunity.

Lindsay v. Northern Virginia Mental Health Institute

736 F. Supp. 1392 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 10, 1990

Defendant Mardelli contends that pursuant to qualified immunity rules established by case law interpreting § 1983 actions as well as pursuant to Virginia sovereign immunity law, his actions are shielded from liability. … As to defendant Mardelli his actions in this case enjoy qualified immunity.

Max v. Paladino

656 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 13, 1987

Second, a rule that government officials are immune from suit under § 1983 whenever they do not intend to violate a person’s civil rights would conflict with the doctrine of qualified immunity established in Harlow v. … ’ ” for which federal officials may only claim qualified immunity.

Greene v. Wright

389 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 21, 2005

Qualified immunity protects from suit state employees whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kerman v. … To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must look to the specific factual circumstances underlying the alleged wrongdoing, and then “make the ultimate legal determination of whether qualified immunity

Walker v. Mahoney

915 F. Supp. 548 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 9, 1996

immunity insofar as their conduct did not violate any clearly-established federal constitutional rights of which a reasonable state official would have known. … The plaintiff further asserts that the defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to the defendants because the procedural due process rights in question were clearly established at the time of the conduct alleged, and

Darby v. Hinds County Department of Human Services

83 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Aug 11, 1999

State of Maryland, 935 F.Supp. 659, 663 (D.Md.1996), found that Congress had clearly manifested its intent to abrogate immunity, but did not consider the further issue of whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid exercise … Mitchell, 986 F.Supp. 339, 342-43 (W.D.Va.1997), the court concluded Eleventh Amendment immunity to be abrogated, relying solely on its finding that Congress had clearly expressed its intention to do so by enacting the FMLA

Brown v. City of Bloomington

District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 27, 2018

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects [law enforcement] officers from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional … Qualified Immunity George is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Erickson v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections

358 F. Supp. 2d 709 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 22, 2005

Qualified immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that public officials may not be held personally liable for performing discretionary functions as long as “ ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established … In the end, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate if the law did not put defendants on notice that their conduct was clearly unlawful. Saucier v.

Martin v. Mendoza

230 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 12, 2002

established right of plaintiff secured by the Fourth Amendment; (2) even if Mendoza committed one or more errors of constitutional magnitude, nevertheless, he is entitled to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense … West, 237 F.3d 356 (4th Cir.2001)(same; affirming denial of summary judgment sought on the ground of qualified immunity; genuine dispute of material fact present); Henderson v.

Beech v. City of Mobile

874 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 10, 1994

Immunity It is well-settled that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … The Eleventh Circuit has set forth the following allocation of proof to be followed when a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense: 1.

Partovi v. Matuszewski

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2009

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Hilton v. Mish

224 F. Supp. 3d 595 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Dec 13, 2016

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant official violated a right so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would have understood

Starks v. Bowles

682 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jan 11, 1988

Whether Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against Defendant is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and, 4. … Plaintiffs’ Claim for Damages Barred by Qualified Immunity A plaintiff must plead specific facts to support a claim against a governmental official who is entitled to the protection of immunity in order to survive a motion

Atayde v. Napa State Hospital

255 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, E.D. California · May 25, 2017

Qualified Immunity The state defendants additionally argue that defendants White and Matteuc-ci are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs § 1983 deliberate indifference claims. (Doc. No. 78-1 at 20-21.) … Government officials enjoy qualified-immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See Jeffers v.

Lowrey v. Texas a & M University System

11 F. Supp. 2d 895 · District Court, S.D. Texas · May 27, 1998

If the defendants raise a qualified-immunity defense in their answer, the court may in its discretion require that the plaintiffs file a reply addressing the defendants’ qualified-immunity claim. … violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

In Re Magnolia Venture Capital Corp.

218 B.R. 843 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Nov 20, 1997

For these reasons, therefore, the court concludes that the Department has clearly, unequivocally and effectively waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and for that reason, the Department’s motion to dismiss will be denied … But it won’t be any qualified intervention. It will be a straight intervention. 2 .

Coffey v. Callaway

86 F. Supp. 3d 111 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 19, 2015

of private rights in the Republic, and on the other, that a denial of qualified immunity would defy established Second Circuit authority. … The right to be free from arrest without probable cause was clearly established at the time of Gonzalez’s arrest.

Harris v. Falls

920 F. Supp. 2d 1247 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 30, 2013

We call this defense “qualified immunity” because the official is immune from a damage lawsuit, qualified upon his ability to show that he did not knowingly violate the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional right. … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”