Case law

Cosgrove v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATIVE SVCS.

744 F. Supp. 2d 1178 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 29, 2010

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, the defendants SRS employees in their individual capacities are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, even assuming the law was clearly established regarding plaintiff's due process rights for acts related

Rueckert v. City of Flint

997 F. Supp. 856 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 6, 1998

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, the doctrine of qualified immunity encompasses such judgmental errors. Id.

Schuckman v. Babin

District Court, D. Kansas · Mar 1, 2024

The Court dismisses Vigil based on qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged a clearly established constitutional violation by him. … As explained above, a qualified-immunity defense requires the Court to consider whether the facts alleged plausibly allege a constitutional violation that was clearly established at the time.

Jones-Huff v. Hill

208 F. Supp. 3d 912 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 21, 2016

“Determination of whether qualified immunity applies depends on whether the violation of a constitutional right occurred and whether the unconstitutionality of an officer’s conduct was clearly established in the law at the … A grant of summary judgment for reasons of qualified immunity would not be appropriate. II.

Cichocki v. Massachusetts Bay Community College

199 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 8, 2016

As detailed herein, it is well-established that enactment of the MTCA does not constitute a waiver of immunity, and, therefore, the motion to dismiss will be allowed as to Counts I and II. … Assuming, arguendo, that as the plaintiffs contend the defendants are being sued in their individual capacities, they may be entitled to qualified immunity. However, the defendants do not address this issue.

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

Levine v. McCabe

357 F. Supp. 2d 608 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2005

The key question is whether the New York system for selecting qualified individuals is rationally related to the legitimate objective of having such qualified individuals serve. … However, his claims and supporting submissions clearly sound in the latter, and will be analyzed as such.

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.

Zappa v. Cruz

30 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Nov 23, 1998

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability for money damages when their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory authority or … Defendants assert that they are protected from liability by qualified immunity because the federal law they violated was not clearly established.

Watrous v. Town of Preston

902 F. Supp. 2d 243 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 29, 2012

Watrous’ property right was clearly established, they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate that right. See Doninger v. … “A finding of arbitrariness not only establishes a due process violation but precludes a defense of qualified immunity.” TLC Development, Inc. v.

Simon v. Bickell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

Gonsalves v. Cleveland

980 F. Supp. 2d 1060 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 30, 2013

But unless police officers have violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,’ ” they enjoy qualified immunity from any suit for civil damages for their official conduct. Pearson v. … In analyzing qualified immunity, courts may assess first the occurrence of a statutory or constitutional violation, and then whether the right involved was clearly established, as was mandated by Saucier v.

Holman v. Williams

436 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

Mayor Williams also is immune from personal liability for alleged violations of plaintiffs right to due process by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Bray Ex Rel. Bray v. Hobart City School Corp.

818 F. Supp. 1226 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 9, 1993

Qualified immunity may be granted to a governmental official who was performing a discretionary function and whose conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Therefore, since the state administrative scheme did not clearly violate an established federal right, Owens is entitled to qualified immunity.

Gales v. District of Columbia

47 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 1999

Analysis The § 1983 claims against defendants named in their individual capacities will be barred by the defense of qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law and the … Mayberry is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

75 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2014

Less clear is whether Officer Thau’s decision to strike Westfahl with his baton is protected by qualified immunity. … Thus, Sergeant Mack is entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Short v. Greene

577 F. Supp. 2d 790 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 22, 2008

Qualified Immunity and Cruel and Unusual Punishment When a defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity, the court must employ the two step analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. … If the answer to that question is “yes,” the second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the events at issue. Qualified immunity is ordinarily resolved at the summary judgment stage.

Root Ex Rel. Root v. Liberty Emergency Physicians, Inc.

68 F. Supp. 2d 1086 · District Court, W.D. Missouri · Oct 27, 1999

A district court’s denial of constitutionally-based immunities, such as qualified or Eleventh Amendment immunity, almost always fall under the collateral order exception because “the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor … Marshall, 121 F.3d 1150, 1154 (8th Cir.1997) (holding that a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity defense is immediately appeal-able.) 3 .

Jefferson v. City of Hazlehurst

936 F. Supp. 382 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Dec 29, 1995

Dallas, 940 F.2d 925 , 942 (5th Cir.1991) (reversing summary judgment that denied qualified immunity defense where plaintiffs failed to state a constitutional violation); White v. … Taylor, 959 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir.1992) (in a 1983 action, the court must determine whether the contours of the plaintiff’s rights are clearly established).

Tresler v. McBee

District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 2025

A state court decision is an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner’s case.” … Winn, 967 F.3d 534, 538 (6th Cir. 2020) (“when a petitioner challenged the admission of his prior crimes, we denied relief because ‘no clearly established Supreme Court precedent ...