Case law

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.

Davis v. Transportation Security Administration

264 F. Supp. 3d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2017

Plaintiff simply made no effort to respond to either of Defendants’ immunity arguments. WMATA argued that it was immune from suit under the WMATA Compact. WMATA’s Mot. Dismiss at 5–7. … Supp. 3d at 113 (describing Plaintiff’s burden to establish subject- matter jurisdiction).

Redding v. Marsh

750 F. Supp. 473 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 13, 1990

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Marsh also claims qualified immunity. The affirmative defense of qualified immunity is available to all government officials. Harlow v. … The court finds that Marsh is entitled to qualified immunity in that his conduct did not violate the clearly established constitutional rights of which reasonable persons would have known.

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.

Owens v. Downey

150 F. Supp. 3d 1008 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Dec 15, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must address two issues: “(1) whether the defendant violated the plaintiffs constitutional rights and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly

Reed v. Marker

762 F. Supp. 652 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 24, 1991

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b) (listing exceptions to sovereign immunity). The Supreme Court has not spoken clearly on this subject. Compare Parratt v. … A fortiori, a plaintiff in a civil suit cannot, merely by alleging that information in the affidavit is incorrect, strip an affiant of his qualified immunity. See Baker v.

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

Brewer v. Kamas

533 F. Supp. 2d 318 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 7, 2008

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official acting in an official capacity from suit for damages under § 1983 unless the official ‘violated clearly established rights of which an objectively reasonable … Here, the record before the court fails to establish that qualified immunity shields Defendants from the instant litigation.

Lockhart-Bembery v. Town of Wayland Police Department

404 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 7, 2005

Defendants offered eight affirmative defenses ranging from failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to qualified immunity. The case was removed by the defendants to this Court on March 24, 2004. … Qualified Immunity In § 1983 actions, the defense of qualified immunity shields a government official performing discretionary functions from civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

MacFarlane v. Kenison

District Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 31, 1999

Qualified Immunity. … To undermine Kenison's invocation of qualified immunity, MacFarlane must first demonstrate that the constitutional right allegedly infringed was "clearly established." See generally Anderson v.

Waterstraat v. Central State Hospital

533 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 12, 1982

Defendants further contend that they acted in good faith and are thus entitled to qualified immunity. … The record clearly shows that plaintiff has been deprived of property whether through a negligent or intentional deprivation.

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.

Dirksen v. City of Springfield

842 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 1994

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from individual capacity § 1983 suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Plaintiff does not respond to the issue of qualified immunity raised by Defendant.

Knuemann v. Naranjo

378 F. Supp. 104 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 25, 1974

Justice Brennan with his approach of qualified privilege, would find themselves sympathetic to the application of the privilege on the Ruderer facts. … We would like to be on record as expressing our concern for a person who is clearly troubled.

Paton v. LaPrade

471 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 1979

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that they are immune from civil liability under the principle of qualified immunity. … . § 1983 unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. More recently in Butz v.

Halcomb v. Ravenal

344 F. Supp. 3d 844 · District Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 30, 2018

Therefore, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity." (ECF No. 51 at 21.) However, the court finds there are triable issues of fact as to whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Tolan v. … Accordingly, *856 the court finds Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

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

Lukos v. Bettencourt

23 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 18, 1998

Qualified Immunity Moreover, at a minimum, the defendants, who were sued only in their individual capacities, are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Supreme Court long ago established that officers performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability so long as them conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Jimerson v. Lewis

District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 31, 2022

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts … to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.