Case law

Davey v. Tomlinson

627 F. Supp. 1458 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · May 15, 1986

The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally ■ are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … The general rule in applying Harlow is that an officer’s qualified immunity “is pierced only if there clearly was no probable cause at the time the arrest was made.” Farrell, 765 F.2d at 5 .

Charles v. Kelly

790 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1992

Moreover, “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery”. Mitchell v. … Qualified immunity is unavailable for injunctive relief. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

251 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2003

Defendants Quinlan and Miller moved to dismiss or for sum *53 mary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the Court denied qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims against defendants Quinlan and Miller in their individual capacities. Id.

Webber v. First Student, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, D. Oregon · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified Immunity Bergreen raises a defense of qualified immunity in response to Webber’s § 1983 claim. … In the context of qualified immunity, the Court determines whether a right was clearly established by looking to “Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law existing at the time of the alleged act.” Cmty. House, Inc. v.

Higazy v. Millennium Hotel and Resorts

346 F. Supp. 2d 430 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2004

Templeton’s actions thus were not “objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law,” Ford v. Moore, 237 F.3d at 162 , and Agent Tem-pleton is entitled to qualified immunity. 4. … In these circumstances Templeton is clearly entitled to the benefit of the qualified immunity defense.

Bratton v. Toboz

764 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 15, 1991

for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.... … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. (Citations omitted). Harlow v.

Wiesman v. Hill

629 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2009

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.

MacE v. City of Akron

989 F. Supp. 949 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 16, 1998

Sammon is protected against judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … A state official is entitled to qualified immunity when her conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established' rules and the information then possessed by the official. Id. (citing Anderson v.

Carrasquillo-Gonzalez v. Sagardia-De-Jesus

723 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 14, 2010

Qualified Immunity The Court determined in its Opinion and Order (Docket #23) that there were no grounds for conferring qualified immunity upon the Defendants. … As stated previously, qualified immunity cannot therefore be conferred upon Carbonell and Cintron. Their qualified immunity claims are hereby DENIED.

Williams v. Recovery School District

859 F. Supp. 2d 824 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Mar 15, 2012

A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that plaintiffs claim is true. Id. … Moreover, RSD’s organizing statute clearly states that RSD “shall be administered by the state Department of Education, subject to the approval of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

Huminski v. Rutland County

148 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Vermont · Jun 5, 2001

The well-established doctrine of judicial immunity entitles judges defending against § 1983 suits to absolute immunity from damages stemming from conduct performed in a judicial capacity. Fields v. … Alternatively, Corsones and Zimmerman argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from suit should the Court find that they are not entitled to absolute immunity.

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.

Siegel v. Miller

446 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 2006

Qualified immunity excuses government officials and employees from standing trial where their conduct “does not violate clearly established-statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … If a constitutional violation could be made out based on plaintiffs evidence, “the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Burr v. Burns

439 F. Supp. 2d 779 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 2006

in light of the clearly establish constitutional rights.” … Thus, the question of whether Officers Burns and Marti are shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity turns on (1) whether the rights were clearly established to the extent that Officers Burns and Marti

Rojicek v. Community Consolidated School District 15

888 F. Supp. 878 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 10, 1995

F.Qualified Immunity In their motion, defendants argue that Counts I through IV should be dismissed as to the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. … “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials performing discretionary functions are protected against suits for damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Turton v. City of Atlanta

738 F. Supp. 1419 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 28, 1990

An individual officer is entitled to qualified immunity insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … It seems that the qualified immunity analysis — whether a reasonable officer could have believed the seizure at issue was not excessive (unreasonable) in light of clearly established law and the information known to the officer

DT v. Somers Central School District

588 F. Supp. 2d 485 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2008

Accordingly, Perrella is entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, Horisk is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance

950 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1997

Gilbert’s claim is not tenable because the executed settlement agreement clearly does not provide for prejudgment interest. … Gilbert has failed to establish that she qualifies for relief under the Back Pay Act. 7 . It is plaintiff's burden to establish that she is a "prevailing party.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Algarin v. Town of Wallkill

313 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 2004

Plaintiffs allege that the Commission’s use of derogatory terms about the department, such as “lawless” and “out of control,” stigmatized and defamed them because, as members of the small police force, each of them was clearly … Insofar as the operations of the police department are concerned, the Police Commissioners are not like employees and other “inferior” state actors, who are afforded only qualified immunity. Id.

Maddux v. District of Columbia

144 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2015

Saucier inquiry: whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established.” … immunity.