Case law

Henry v. Jefferson County Personnel Board

519 F. Supp. 2d 1171 · District Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 23, 2007

Unless Sims acted outside the scope of his appointed jurisdiction — which he clearly did not — judicial immunity applies. … As noted earlier, if Plaintiff is correct that her position duties were consolidated, she can establish her prima facie burden by showing either that she was qualified for her current position or that she was qualified for

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.

Chiropractic Alliance of New Jersey v. Parisi

854 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 27, 1994

Thus, while the Defendants are potentially entitled to qualified immunity, 17 they are not entitled to absolute immunity. IV. Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. … Defendants raise a similar specificity argument in the context of their qualified immunity claim, discussed infra. Where qualified immunity is at issue, there is a heightened pleading standard. See Hunter v.

Bowden v. Town of Speedway, Ind.

539 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Feb 13, 2008

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity for individual liability where the facts a plaintiff alleges (1) reveal a constitutional violation (2) according to “clearly established” law at the time. … Plaintiff has not presented a closely analogous case clearly establishing that Bowden’s behavior lacked force.

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2020

Supp. 3d at 198 (“[T]the applicability of qualified immunity turns on whether the facts as pleaded establish that [Defendants’] conduct was clearly prohibited under circumstances before them.” (citing Wesby, 138 S. … Supp. 199 (concluding that there was not a clearly established reasonable expectation of privacy based on the facts as alleged, and ruling on qualified immunity grounds).

Jackson v. Mowery

743 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 24, 1990

The Supreme Court has recognized that state officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … There is no qualified immunity if the defendant violated a clearly established and well litigated general proposition in which the case at hand merely presents a new wrinkle. LeClair v.

Dennis v. DeJong

953 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 14, 2013

Qualified immunity provides immunity from suit instead of merely providing a defense to liability. … conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right....

Nakao v. Rushen

580 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 21, 1984

Defendant also maintains that he is entitled to summary judgment, because the undisputed facts establish that his conduct is protected by the qualified good faith immunity defined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. … established law and are not protected by good faith immunity.

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

Wormley v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

But if so, then Step Two asks “whether the right was clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Carmer v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2025

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether a constitutional mandate must be “clearly established”—similar to principles undergirding the qualified immunity doctrine—to render the discretionary function exception … See Def.’s Mem. at 32 n.21 (advocating for the more stringent “clearly established” standard); Pl.’s Opp’n at 12 (contending that the “clearly established” standard as applied in the discretionary-function context “has

Wilbon v. Plovanich

67 F. Supp. 3d 927 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 9, 2014

Qualified Immunity: whether Defendants had arguable probable cause Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claims only. (Defs.’ Mem. at 8-9,14, 17-18.) … Plaintiffs accurately point out that Defendants have failed to raise, and thus waive, any argument as to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, namely, that the respective constitutional rights were not clearly

Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township

270 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2003

Qualified immunity applies so long as the officials’ conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 316 F.3d at 398. … (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Goodwin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2022

Mem. at 8. 5 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials sued in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Dormu v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Burton v. Cameron County, Tex.

884 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Apr 24, 1995

Stern pleaded qualified immunity as a defense. He did. The second question is whether Mr. … In failing to establish that his Fourteenth Amendment right to reasonable medical care was violated, Mr. Burton has failed to overcome Dr. Stern’s qualified immunity defense.

Barnhardt v. District of Columbia

723 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2010

Qualified Immunity Sloan and Ramadhan argue that there was probable cause for Barnhardt’s arrest and hence no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and, therefore, that qualified immunity protects them from suit. … Qualified immunity therefore protects Sloan from suit.

Bartels v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LLOYD

751 F. Supp. 2d 387 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 2010

Although this fact alone does not negate the qualified immunity defense, the Court finds that in the specific circumstances of this case, the resolution of the qualified immunity defense involves disputed factual questions … The defense of qualified immunity is unavailable to the Village. See County of Sacramento v.

Reno v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

977 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 12, 1997

In analyzing a qualified immunity claim, the Court must first determine whether plaintiff has “ ‘allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right’ under currently applicable constitutional standards.” … Because Reno has not alleged the violation of a clearly established right, Moorer and Raymond are entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense to Reno’s § 1983 claim. X.

Hill v. Silsbee Independent School District

933 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Mar 14, 1996

Defendant-Muckleroy’s Defense of Qualified Immunity Defendant Muckleroy seeks to invoke the defense of qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … However, qualified immunity does not shield a public official whose conduct violates clearly-established constitutional rights at the time of the incident, if a reasonable person would have known that such conduct was unconstitutional