Case law

Cox v. McCraley

993 F. Supp. 1452 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 10, 1998

Clearly, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Further, because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Mitchell v.

Johnson v. Ft. Pierce Police Department

849 F. Supp. 1543 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 25, 1994

However, factual disputes do not preclude a grant of summary judgment premised on a defendant’s qualified immunity if the legal norms allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the alleged actions. … Smith, Aikens and Kirk are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, unless Johnson can show that those officers violated clearly established law when they pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him

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

Bergeron v. Cabral

535 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 14, 2008

Qualified Immunity Finally, Cabral asserts a defense of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity attaches to discretionary conduct of government officials that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Bertrand v. Kopcow

212 F. Supp. 3d 974 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 3, 2016

Qualified Immunity Montoya argues that, even if a constitutional violation occurred, she is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Majid v. Wilhelm

110 F. Supp. 2d 251 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 22, 2000

State officials who are sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity from liability from damages for their discretionary acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … grant of qualified immunity.

Alicea v. Puerto Rico Tourism Co.

270 F. Supp. 2d 243 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 3, 2003

Qualified Immunity Defendants in their personal capacity also allege they are entitled to qualified immunity. … If no violation of a clearly established constitutional right is found, then the analysis halts because “there is qualified immunity.” Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davila, 135 F.3d 182, 187 (1st Cir.1998).

Cabral v. County of Glenn

624 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2009

Officer Dahl’s Qualified Immunity Defense However, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether a right is clearly established must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.

Goonewardena v. New York

475 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 14, 2007

To state a claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish that: 1) plaintiff is a “qualified individual” with a disability; 2) defendant is subject to the Act; and 3) plaintiff … The Second Circuit has stated that in order to establish valid abrogation permitting suits for money damages against the State or indi *324 viduals in their official capacities, the plaintiff must "establish that the Title

Housley v. Killinger

747 F. Supp. 1405 · District Court, D. Oregon · Oct 12, 1990

If established, good faith immunity is a defense to a claim for money damages against individual officials for actions which were objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established constitutional law. … The acts of Kil-linger in enforcing these policies do not abrogate the qualified immunity he has against the claims of Housley.

Velasco v. Head

166 F. Supp. 2d 1100 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 10, 2000

Furthermore, government officials, including correctional officers, may have qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established … The Fourth Circuit has held that where the parties’ versions of the underlying facts are in direct contradiction, resolution of the qualified immunity issue is inappropriate at the summary judgment stage.

Reed v. City of Lavonia

390 F. Supp. 2d 1347 · District Court, M.D. Georgia · May 19, 2005

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In this case, Defendants argue that, even if a constitutional violation is found, they are nonetheless entitled to immunity because it was not clearly established that Masionet and Carlisle’s actions were unconstitutional

Modrell v. Hayden

636 F. Supp. 2d 545 · District Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 13, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants claim that even if Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated by Defendants Riddle and Hayden’s warrantless entry on June 8, 2006, they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … “Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir.2006).

Sanders Ex Rel. Sanders v. Marquette Public Schools

561 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Apr 14, 1983

The Supreme Court held that to present the elements of a claim under the Act, the plaintiff had to show that she was “otherwise qualified” for the position sought, and second, though otherwise qualified, she was denied the … For these reasons, suit may be brought to vindicate the rights established by the Rehabilitation Act under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . III.

Martinez v. Sun

896 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2012

They argue that the undisputed facts establish that they did not participate in a constitutional violation and, in the alternative, they assert qualified immunity for their actions. A. … The Court went on to reject the guards’ claims of qualified immunity because “Coleman clearly established a right to a prompt appearance after arrest pursuant to a warrant.” Id. at 582 .

Bragado v. City of Zion/Police Department

788 F. Supp. 366 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1992

They alternatively argue that even if they failed to take adequate steps to prevent Bragado’s suicide or to protect her, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of Bragado … See Hall at 404 (no qualified immunity regarding arrest on May 4, 1986). Consequently, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I is denied.

Cincotta v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.

313 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 14, 2018

Almonte , 478 F.3d at 106 ("Immunity, either absolute or qualified, is a personal defense that is available only when officials are sued in their individual capacities; the immunities officials enjoy when sued personally … However, "[t]he burden of establishing is pretext is higher than that required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination." Geras v. Hempstead Union Free Sch.

Brown v. Blanchard

31 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jul 17, 2014

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *1012 tional rights of which a reasonable person would … Under the second factual scenario, Blanchard is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that an officer who shoots a suspect in an effort to protect himself cannot escape liability if the danger

Limone v. United States

271 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 17, 2003

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants Condon, Rico, and Walsh argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields government officials “from liability for civil damages if their actions did not violate ‘clearly established … Put another way, the qualified immunity issue as it is raised by the defendants does not require me to resolve any legal dispute about the contours of relevant “clearly established law.”

Shepard v. Wapello County

303 F. Supp. 2d 1004 · District Court, S.D. Iowa · Dec 31, 2003

established” for purposes of the Harloiu qualified immunity standard.’ ” Buzek v. … Defendants have not established the defense of qualified immunity.