Case law

Gill v. Smith

283 F. Supp. 2d 763 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jul 11, 2003

, and (3) that qualified immunity barred Plaintiffs claims. … Defendant’s qualified immunity defense 5 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suits for money damages where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jones v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration

801 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jul 16, 1992

IV The individual officer defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from liability, because their actions were reasonable, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Sixth Circuit cases clearly establish that the shield of qualified immunity protects official defendants only where monetary damages are sought. Guercio v. Brody, 911 F.2d 1179, 1189 (6th Cir.1990); Hensley v.

GUNASEKERA v. Irwin

774 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 28, 2011

claims for equitable relief were also barred by qualified immunity. … established for purposes of qualified immunity could not be decided on the undeveloped factual record that existed at the time.

Emanuel Nikolaos Mpras v. District of Columbia

74 F. Supp. 3d 265 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2014

Mpras alleges that the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) “has established procedures for establishing eligibility [for] and the issuance of photographic identification for all qualified former … In enacting LEOSA, Congress clearly recognized the states’ authority to establish their own firearm permit standards and make their own decisions whether to issue the photographic identification required by subsection (

Toney v. State of Ala.

784 F. Supp. 1542 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Mar 4, 1992

Clearly, defendants have not consented to this court’s jurisdiction, and Toney does not argue that defendants have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity. … In their answer, defendants Thigpen and Na-gle assert qualified immunity. Defendants do not pursue this defense in their motion for summary judgment. 2 .

Bumpers v. Cleveland

653 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, D. Utah · Aug 28, 2009

CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW To prevail against a defense of qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ ...: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear … Because the law was clearly established in these areas, Trooper Cleveland is not entitled to qualified immunity. IV. OTHER CLAIMS A.

Mitchell v. Yates

402 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2005

This issue is relevant to both municipal liability and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in § 1983 actions “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Comeau v. Town of Webster

881 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 24, 2012

Defendant Purcell seeks cover under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields public officials from suit, and is not a mere defense to liability. Mitchell v. … Likewise, it may be that Purcell performed his duties reasonably and is granted qualified immunity.

Hubbard v. City of Middletown

782 F. Supp. 1573 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 1990

Qualified Immunity Public officials may be “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 … Although the resolution of qualified immunity for government officials is a question of law (Poe, 853 F.2d at 424 ), that question must be determined on established facts in a particular case.

Doe v. Banos

966 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2013

Skahill, 298 Fed.Appx. 161, 165 (3d Cir.2008) (citations omitted) (explaining that (1) qualified immunity protects government officials from liability if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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).

Lora-Pena v. Denney

760 F. Supp. 2d 458 · District Court, D. Delaware · Jan 10, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Leo is entitled to qualified immunity. Under certain circumstances, government officials are protected from Bivens and § 1983 suits by qualified immunity. … Second, the court inquires “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id.

Walker v. Benter

41 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 1999

The State defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The inquiry for determining whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for a violation of the Fourth Amendment requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Wargo v. MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, PA

646 F. Supp. 2d 777 · District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2009

Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, if one assumed, arguendo, that Defendants’ conduct did indeed constitute a § 1983 violation, they would still be afforded qualified … Qualified immunity will be granted when a reasonable officer in the position of a defendant could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the established law and information known to the officer at the

Scholl v. Pavilonis

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 5, 2025

immunity. … App’x 910, 915 (3d Cir. 2005) (complaint may be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on qualified immunity “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint” (cleaned up)).

Andrade v. Chojnacki

65 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 1, 1999

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional law. Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856 (5th Cir.1999); Sorenson v. … Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the First Amendment, the Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the commission of the alleged

Murphy v. Lockhart

826 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 14, 2011

immunity insofar as he has failed to demonstrate a violation of clearly established rights. … Qualified immunity The magistrate judge recommends denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as the defendants have plead only a perfunctory qualified immunity defense, and therefore

Klaucke v. Daly

592 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 13, 2009

Even assuming that the actions of Defendant in some way violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights (which they did not), Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Put differently, the “rights” Plaintiff attempts to invoke in this lawsuit certainly were not clearly established as of the date of the incident. Saucier v.

Minett, Toussaint v. Overwachter, Bradley

District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jan 15, 2020

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar

98 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 18, 2000

Qualified Immunity. Finally, defendants seek summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Starkey Ex Rel. Starkey v. Somers Central School Dist.

319 F. Supp. 2d 410 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 18, 2004

Brodow is entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a