Case law

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.

Kelsey-Andrews v. City of Philadelphia

713 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1989

Qualified Immunity In support of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendants’ argue that Liciardello and Doyle are entitled to qualified immunity as police supervisors. … Prockop, 682 F.Supp. 247, 254-55 (D.N.J.1987) (public official not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged acts of sexual harassment occurring in 1983; contours of the law of § 1983 sexual harassment were clearly established

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.

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.

Thompson v. Ohio State University

92 F. Supp. 3d 719 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2015

Schweik-hart’s additional argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity. C. … Courts use a two-step analysis to address a government official’s qualified immunity defense.

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.

Petry v. Lawler

718 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 28, 1989

“Scope of prosecutorial duties” is a key phrase in the immunity analysis. Actions within that scope are protected by absolute immunity, but actions outside the scope are protected by only qualified immunity. … The difference is critical-absolute immunity bars suits before any proof is adduced; qualified immunity shields defendants only upon proof that the challenged conduct was not in violation of clearly established law.

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

Mills v. Willams

476 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 26, 2007

Qualified Immunity Before addressing the merits of the claims, this.Court must first address the qualified immunity defense raised by Defendants. … Second, is the right clearly established?” Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir.2006) citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 . Defendants qualified immunity defense necessarily fails.

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.

Lange v. City of Benton Harbor

111 F. Supp. 3d 785 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · May 27, 2015

“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 … Once the ' defendants plead an affirmative defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to “show that the official violated a right so clearly established ‘that every reasonable official would have understood

Thompson v. Baker

133 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Aug 19, 1955

Apparently this is the first case in which the question of the immunity of sheriffs or constables has been raised in a case based on the Civil Rights Act, but the above cited decisions clearly chart the course for the Court … The Court can perceive of no reason why the long-established immunity of a constable serving a writ should be in any degree inferior to the immunity of quasi-judicial officers, wardens, or prothonotaries, and the Court is

Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

98 F.R.D. 42 · District Court, D. Maryland · May 2, 1983

This Court left open the possibility that a qualified immunity defense might be raised at trial. Id. On June 24, 1982, the United States Supreme Court decided Harlow v. … Because the issue of qualified immunity is very much alive, and may be reasserted by these defendants at trial, the authority they actually possessed is a highly relevant issue.

Salts v. Moore

107 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 27, 2000

The first step in the inquiry of a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity is whether the plaintiffs have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Siegert v. … Alternatively, Defendants contend that even if Plaintiffs could establish a claim under § 1983, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

James v. Chavez

830 F. Supp. 2d 1208 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 9, 2011

Once the plaintiff has established the inference that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, a qualified immunity defense generally fails. See Cannon v. … The plaintiff in a qualified immunity case has the burden to establish that a right is clearly established. See Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d at 1186 .

Bills v. Williams

District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 3, 2025

unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law.” … “Unless the plaintiff's 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.

Anilao v. Spota

340 F. Supp. 3d 224 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 28, 2018

If absolute immunity does not apply, government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e. , if their "conduct did not violate plaintiff's clearly established rights, or if it would … App'x at 401 ("The police officers, in turn, are protected by qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established law, or it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate

Scarver v. Litscher

371 F. Supp. 2d 986 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · May 27, 2005

Nonetheless, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for money damages because it was not clearly established at the time that subjecting mentally ill inmates to sensory deprivation and social isolation would violate … Qualified Immunity Alternately, defendants seek protection under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Lyman v. NYS OASAS

928 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 26, 2013

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also “immunity from suit”).

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.