Case law

Irons v. City of Bolivar

897 F. Supp. 2d 665 · District Court, W.D. Tennessee · Sep 28, 2012

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are afforded qualified immunity and are shielded from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established [federal] statutory … As such, the issues of the City’s § 1983 liability and the Defendants’ qualified immunity are moot. . See Sections A, D, E, and F above. . See Sections A, B, C, D, E, and F above.

Holloman v. Clarke

236 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 23, 2017

Prosecutorial Immunity Prosecutors are afforded two kinds of immunity in suits brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 : absolute and qualified. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 118 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997). … The burden is on the defendant to establish which, if either, immunity applies. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 , 113 S.Ct. 2606 , 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993).

Barnes v. Smith

654 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 5, 1987

In the performance of ministerial, nonjudicial duties, a clerk is entitled to qualified, good faith immunity. McLallen v. Henderson, 492 F.2d 1298, 1299 (8th Cir.1974); Kane v. … Under this immunity, clerks are "shielded 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."

Solovy v. Morabito

608 F. Supp. 2d 859 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 30, 2009

C) Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Wfiiether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law. Id.

Cuvo v. De Bias

339 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 30, 2004

If qualified immunity is to be defeated, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. First, he must establish that the government official violated a “basic, unquestioned constitutional right” belonging to plaintiff. … Accordingly, we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the first level of a qualified immunity analysis.

Williams v. Goldsmith

905 F. Supp. 996 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Nov 28, 1995

Execution of process is clearly an “on duty” or official activity. … Sovereign immunity includes a qualified immunity available to state officers acting within the general scope of their authority who perform discretionary functions. Phillips, 555 So.2d at 85 .

Swinton v. City of New York

785 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 28, 2011

Consistent with established precedent, the parties agree that Detective Barry (along with other unnamed police officers) is entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects officials from liability for civil damages as long … as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Tyler v. New York

953 F. Supp. 63 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jan 29, 1997

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government employees, acting in their official capacity, “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Further, even if the plaintiff’s rights *68 were clearly established, “the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable’ for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time

Baser v. Tri-State Fire Protection District

69 F. Supp. 3d 845 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2014

of qualified immunity. … But he has not shown that the right was clearly established.

Guttman v. Khalsa

320 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Sep 15, 2003

New Mexico is well established under Tenth Circuit law. a. … Instead, the Court held that these individuals were entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Williams v. Blaisdell

173 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 6, 2001

§ 1983 6 unless it is shown by specific allegations that the official violated clearly established constitutional law. … In analyzing whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court undertakes a two-stage analysis. Id.

Lee v. Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County

18 F. Supp. 2d 1143 · District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 21, 1998

The qualified immunity defense provides immunity for government officials when performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Plaintiff must also show that his rights were clearly established at the time of his termination in order to defeat Gibbs’ claim of qualified immunity. Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 .

Gant v. County of Los Angeles

765 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 26, 2011

An official is entitled to qualified immunity where his or her “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … But rights are not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes at this level of generality. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Freyd v. Univ. of Or.

384 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, D. Oregon · May 2, 2019

Qualified immunity for each defendant depends on whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right in their individual capacities as university officials. … The Supreme Court, in analyzing qualified immunity and the "clearly established" requirement, looks to whether precedent that directly establishes a right exists, and does not account for emergent or theoretical rights.

Zimmerman v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University

940 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Apr 15, 2013

Gillilan and Hargrave are not entitled to qualified immunity because case law “clearly establishes] that the authority of school officials to regulate student speech is limited to those instances in which the speech occurs … Gillilan and Hargrave are entitled to qualified immunity as to such claim as it is anything but clearly established.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

644 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Gjovernment 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

Kisembo v. NYS Office of Children & Family Servs.

285 F. Supp. 3d 509 · District Court, N.D. New York · Feb 1, 2018

In sum, plaintiffs have offered no legitimate reason to doubt whether OCFS qualifies as a state agency for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, their § 1983 claims against OCFS are subject to dismissal. … Defendants also seek dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity, timeliness, improper service, and a lack of personal involvement on the part of any of the named defendants.

Smith v. Salter

District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 8, 2018

However, having found herein that Plaintiff's allegations do not establish a constitutional violation, "there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Saucier v. … Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993) (pushing handcuffed individual against a wall, although unnecessary, was not plainly unlawful, and officer entitled to qualified immunity because "it was not clearly established

Picozzi v. Sandalow

623 F. Supp. 1571 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 2, 1986

Qualified Immunity Even if Sandalow did violate Picozzi’s procedural due process rights, and I hold he did not, I also hold that Sandalow is entitled on the facts of this case to qualified immunity. … It is now clear that qualified immunity shields officials from damage liability as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Lear v. Zanick

850 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 2012

was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Defendants Lewis, Mercer, and Haubrick are entitled to qualified immunity. G.