Case law

Younger v. Chernovetz

792 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 10, 1992

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which *177 a reasonable person would have known. … Defendants seeking the benefit of qualified immunity must make such a specific showing. There is no basis to grant defendants qualified immunity. V.

Dellamore v. Stenros

886 F. Supp. 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 16, 1995

Finally, defendants also seek summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Qualified immunity is available on a motion for summary judgment “if it appears, from undisputed facts, that an officer’s conduct did not violate constitutional rights that were clearly established at the time of his [or

Anglin v. City of Aspen

562 F. Supp. 2d 1304 · District Court, D. Colorado · May 1, 2008

They further contend that even if their actions resulted in a violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show that these rights were clearly established … In determining whether qualified immunity shields Police Defendants from liability, this court is obligated to consider whether there has been a constitutional violation before determining whether the law was clearly established

Candela Corp. v. Regents of the University of California

976 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 25, 1997

Standing alone, such a “qualified removal” might not rise to the level of an “unequivocal” waiver of immunity. … By removing the action, answering the complaint, counterclaiming, and opposing a motion to remand on immunity grounds, the Regents has clearly and un *93 equivocally waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in the present

Robertson v. ALA. DEPT. OF ECON. & COMM. AFFAIRS

902 F. Supp. 1473 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Jul 31, 1995

Therefore the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is granted. C. … Again, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is predicated on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Caton v. Salamon

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2024

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct violated a constitutional right, but that right was not clearly established at the time of the violation. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200–201.

Pharris v. Looper

6 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · May 26, 1998

Qualified Immunity A public official is protected from liability in his individual capacity by the good faith qualified immunity defense when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights … Accordingly, the Court finds that Looper is not shielded from individual liability on the basis of qualified immunity. *729 D.

Eide v. Timberlake

497 F. Supp. 1272 · District Court, D. Kansas · Sep 22, 1980

If Timberlake is unable to establish the two prerequisites of Barr , he may still be entitled to qualified immunity under McMillan if the public interest in affording protection to this particular government official outweighs … Timberlake’s Claim of Qualified Immunity.

Anderson v. Cornejo

284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 2003

It was held that “violation of an administrative rule or regulation does not preclude applying qualified immunity where the pertinent constitutional law is not clearly established.” Id. at 265-66 (citing Davis v. … Plaintiffs presently argue that Anderson IV’s qualified immunity holding as to when the some level of suspicion standard for standard patdown searches was clearly established, see 199 F.R.D. at 256-57 , should be reconsidered

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

Smith v. Maschner

915 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jan 11, 1996

Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs due process right to call Bohannon as a witness was not “clearly established” at the time of the 1984 disciplinary hearing.

Stepney v. City of Columbia

695 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 9, 2010

Therefore, Stepney has satisfied the first prong of the test for qualified immunity. However, Huber contends that his alleged conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Id. ¶ 8. … Because Stepney has presented some evidence that Huber’s conduct violated constitutional rights and that his conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, Huber is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Bancoult v. McNamara

227 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2002

When a plaintiff brings an action against the United States, establishing subject-matter jurisdiction requires an additional step, as the United States cannot be sued absent an explicit statutory waiver of sovereign immunity … For example, can a claim for in-junctive relief against the United States that is premised on customary international law qualify for a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Roberto Rivas v. County of Orange

District Court, C.D. California · Apr 14, 2023

clearly 3 established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 4 have known.” … To 6 determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks, in 7 the order it chooses, (1) whether the alleged misconduct violated a constitutional 8 right; and (2) whether the right was clearly

Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

929 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1996

Courts have held that plaintiffs relying on Bivens are held to a "heightened pleading standard” requiring plaintiffs to “specify the 'clearly established’ rights they allege to have been violated with ... precision].” … Additionally, federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defendants’ alleged actions violated clearly established law

Martinez-Catala v. Guzman Cardona

971 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 18, 1997

Finally, plaintiff argue that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the dismissals, it was clearly established that municipal employees could not be fired for political reasons unless political … See Vazquez Rios, 819 F.2d 319 (qualified immunity granted with regards to patronage dismissal of editing assistant and executive secretary in Governor’s Office of Cultural Affairs because it was not clearly established that

Anderson v. Alpine City

804 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, D. Utah · Oct 5, 1992

They contend, however, that they are protected from civil liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Plaintiffs argue that the individual defendants are protected by neither absolute nor qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Alhovsky v. Ryan

658 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 2009

At a minimum they had an arguable basis for doing so, which entitles them to the shield of qualified immunity. … “To be entitled to qualified immunity, it must be established that it was objectively reasonable for the police officers involved to believe that their conduct was appropriate under the circumstances, or that officers of

Standt v. City of New York

153 F. Supp. 2d 417 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2001

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity insulates a police officer from liability for civil rights violations committed in the course of duty if (1) the officer believed in good faith that his conduct was lawful; and (2) it … Although courts should rule on qualified immunity defenses “early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive,” Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2155, the question of qualified

Gregory v. City of Vallejo

63 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2014

Calhoun’s entitlement to qualified immunity (id. at 18-19). … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Officer Calhoun is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs cannot show their Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the shooting. (Defs.’