Case law

Murphy v. McClendon

712 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 8, 1988

Good faith immunity protects government officials from individual civil liability for their discretionary acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the rights violated were not clearly established at that time, the qualified immunity defense of defendants Johnson and McClendon entitles them to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment and substantive due process

Covell v. MENKIS

574 F. Supp. 2d 874 · District Court, C.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2008

The Defendants also allege the ambiguity bolsters their claim they are entitled to qualified immunity since any lack of clarity would show that they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. … Fourth, the Defendants allege that qualified immunity is appropriate because it was not clearly established that the conduct in question violated Covell’s constitutional rights.

Lee v. City of Richmond

100 F. Supp. 3d 528 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 18, 2015

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The foregoing analysis also would yield summary judgment on the plea of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects police officers in the performance of their discretionary functions from civil liability under § 1983 so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable

Martinez v. Sun

896 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2012

They argue that the undisputed facts establish that they did not participate in a constitutional violation and, in the alternative, they assert qualified immunity for their actions. A. … The Court went on to reject the guards’ claims of qualified immunity because “Coleman clearly established a right to a prompt appearance after arrest pursuant to a warrant.” Id. at 582 .

Amobi v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections

262 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2009

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)), they are cloaked with qualified immunity that must be defeated before discovery can proceed in a lawsuit based on the prosecutor’s actions. See, e.g., Siegert v. … prosecutor were not performed in his or her official capacity; (2) 19 if they won on that point, they would have to defeat a claim of qualified immunity by establishing

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.

Liverman v. City of Petersburg

106 F. Supp. 3d 744 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 6, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity li *768 ability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … understood that his conduct violated that clearly established law.

Frazier v. DiGuglielmo

640 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 25, 2008

The question whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation, because “[i]f a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial, then qualified immunity is … “Unless 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.” *601 Mitchell v.

AG Ex Rel. KC v. Autauga County Bd. of Educ.

506 F. Supp. 2d 927 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 11, 2007

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The next step in the qualified immunity analysis is the determination of whether the plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.

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”).

Lefebure v. Boeker

390 F. Supp. 3d 729 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 25, 2019

Qualified Immunity - Individual Capacity Claims As discussed above, Plaintiff failed to address the DA's individual liability under the Equal Protection Clause, the only viable federal constitutional claim asserted, in her … Unlike government officials sued in their individual capacities, municipal entities and local governing bodies do not enjoy immunity from suit, either absolute or qualified, under § 1983. Leatherman v.

Blackstone v. Quirino

309 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 17, 2004

With respect to the timing of the qualified immunity determination, the' Supreme Court has “stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. … established law.”

Burkhart v. Saxbe

448 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 1978

To enjoy the defense of qualified immunity 33 the defendants must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) they did not know and reasonably need not have known that overhearing the plaintiffs’ conversations … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975) which established only qualified immunity for state executive officials violating civil rights, was improper because defendants in this casé were federal officials

Jackson v. Brickey

771 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Feb 11, 2011

A Officer Brickey moves to dismiss based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Consequently, qualified immunity attaches when the government actor’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Estate of Hernandez-Rojas ex rel. Hernandez v. United States

62 F. Supp. 3d 1169 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 29, 2014

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Further, that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Accordingly,' none of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. B.

North Atlantic Security Company v. Blache

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 29, 2022

established federal right that Blache violated by sending the cease-and-desist order, Blache is entitled to qualified immunity.53 A right is “clearly established” only if it “ … Hodgkiss, 11 F.4th 329, 333 (5th Cir. 2021) (“The officer will be entitled to qualified immunity…if the conduct ‘did not violate law clearly established at the time.’”

Waldron v. Rotzler

862 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, N.D. New York · Sep 27, 1994

Amendment because they are shielded by qualified immunity. … Yet, even if the rights in question are clearly established, a government actor may still be shielded by qualified immunity if “it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts did not violate

Schmersal v. Major

753 F. Supp. 2d 691 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 30, 2010

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue, independent of whether Plaintiffs speech was protected by the First Amendment, that Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in terminating Plaintiff. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), held "if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate."

Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Administration

936 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2013

Imperatrice and Pfau argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Generally, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) "their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” or (2) "it was objectively reasonable

Bertuglia v. City of New York

133 F. Supp. 3d 608 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2015

of clearly established law.” … “[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those