Case law

Jones v. City of Wilmington

299 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jan 8, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The Third Circuit has said that in determining whether qualified immunity applies, the issue is “whether a reasonable public official would know that his or her specific conduct violated clearly established rights.”

Andre v. Castor

963 F. Supp. 1169 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 7, 1997

The challenged order (Docket No. 42) clearly and unambiguously stated that this Court was deferring a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity (p.15). … Even if the defendants were to convince the circuit court that this Court erred in its decision to defer ruling on whether the complaint alleges a violation of clearly established law, the appellate remedy would be a remand

HARRIS BY TUCKER v. County of Forsyth

921 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

The Individual Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. The individual Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from [section] 1983 liability, as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Gregory v. County of Maui

414 F. Supp. 2d 965 · District Court, D. Hawaii · Feb 1, 2006

Qualified Immunity Under the Supreme Court’s test for qualified immunity articulated in Saucier v. … If the answer is no, there is qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court then asks whether the right was “clearly established.” Id. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Camacho-Morales v. Caldero

68 F. Supp. 3d 261 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 18, 2014

If so, the court must then determine “whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation.” Id. There are, in turn, two aspects to the “clearly established” analysis. … — in the negative, I need not determine whether defendants are entitled, in their personal capacities, to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly' established at the time of its violation.

Hestekin v. Belay

371 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 21, 2019

For these reasons, plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim likely fails as a matter of law, or at the very least under the doctrine of qualified immunity for lack of any law clearly establishing the illegality of these defendants … "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 person

Newkirk v. Sheers

834 F. Supp. 772 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 1993

In applying the doctrine of qualified immunity to the facts of a given case, a court must grant immunity to a government official performing discretionary functions “insofar as [her] conduct does not violate clearly established … In some cases, the qualified immunity issue also has rested on “the complementary question of whether defendant had a clearly 'established duty towards plaintiff.” Ryan v.

STEFANIK v. Reno

538 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 13, 2008

“Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In other words, the court believes that it is clear beyond peradventure of doubt that, for qualified immunity purposes, Defendants’ conduct did not constitute a violation of any clearly established constitutional right.

Ryan v. City of Detroit

174 F. Supp. 3d 964 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2016

both a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields Defendants from civil liability. … Based upon that conclusion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion based on qualified immunity, without addressing the “clearly established right” component. A.

Epps v. U.S. Attorney General

575 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2008

CSO James is protected by qualified immunity. 10 Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to performance of their discretionary functions unless an official’s conduct violated a clearly established … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the partfy’s] submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. In the present case, Mr.

Hill v. Algor

85 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 18, 2000

Finally, there is no meaningful dispute regarding Kwap’s entitlement to qualified immunity. The right to be free from an unprovoked beating while in police custody is clearly established. See e.g., Thompson v. … Both Makuka and Kwap also assert qualified immunity defenses. A person’s right "not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" while in police custody, however, is clearly established. Estelle v.

Chao v. Ballista

630 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 1, 2009

Qualified Immunity Finally, the Defendants claim that qualified immunity requires dismissal of Chao’s suit. … It is clearly established that the sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison guards or officials amounts to a constitutional violation. See Schwenk v.

Danyus v. Slama DeRosa

District Court, C.D. Illinois · Jan 8, 2021

Wolf also claims she is entitled to qualified immunity because she had no personal involvement in the investigation. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Dunn v. HYRA

676 F. Supp. 2d 1172 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2009

“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 person … Qualified Immunity Having determined that violations of Mr. Tompkins’s and Mr.

Atkinson v. County of Tulare

790 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, E.D. California · May 18, 2011

immunity shields 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.” … The qualified immunity inquiry has two prongs: (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established

Bryant v. Jones

464 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Nov 21, 2006

The process for analyzing a defense of qualified immunity is well established: To be eligible for qualified immunity, the official must first establish that he was performing a “discretionary function” at the time the alleged … Several defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Lowe's retaliation claim because at the time of the alleged discrimination, the law did not clearly establish that their activities violated §

Ballard v. Holinka

601 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

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 or constitutional … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Cole v. Doe 1 Thru 2 Officers of Emeryville Police Department

387 F. Supp. 2d 1084 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 2005

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Supreme Court established a two-prong analysis for qualified immunity cases. … Cole were to establish purposeful violation of clearly established rights, the officers would not be shielded by qualified immunity. Cf. Crawford-El v.

Al Janko v. Gates

831 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2011

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (stating that qualified immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability") (emphasis in original). … Defs. at 25 - were not clearly established at the time of his detention, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if a Bivens action were implied. See Pearson v.

Jeanty v. City of Miami

876 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2012

whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Once the officer has made that showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id.