Case law

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

Hartmann v. Gaffney

446 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 15, 1977

However, in light of the criteria established in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., supra, this Court finds that the amount claimed is unreasonable and excessive for the following reasons. … under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity as announced by the United States Supreme Court in Imbler v.

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

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

McLaurin v. Fischer

595 F. Supp. 318 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 26, 1983

He argues that he is entitled to a qualified immunity from suit under that statute. … In such a case, qualified immunity would be unavailable. See Harlow, supra. Because this immunity question turns on factual determinations, summary judgment is precluded.

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

Rogers v. City of New Britain

189 F. Supp. 3d 345 · District Court, D. Connecticut · May 17, 2016

Qualified Immunity The defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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.’

Rayborn v. Bossier Parish School System

198 F. Supp. 3d 747 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 18, 2016

or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.’ ” Cutler v. … As explained below, Plaintiff has likewise failed to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, such that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim, as well. .

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. City of Seattle

274 F. Supp. 3d 1155 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 1, 2017

state' immunity. … Trade Comm’n, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1101, 1111 , 191 L.Ed,2d 36 (2015), Under the Ordinance, the City’s Director of Finance and Administrative Services establishes criteria for the identification of qualifying drivers whose

Hurley v. Ward

451 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to [defendants] if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … Thus, it simply cannot be said that at the time the events in question occurred plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from these searches was “clearly established,” Procunier v.

Garmhausen v. Holder

757 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 3, 2010

“At the motion to dismiss stage of a civil damages action, a defendant is entitled to the shield of qualified immunity if the allegations of the complaint fail to state a claim that his conduct violated ‘clearly established … McCarthy is entitled to qualified immunity with respect this alleged communication because the allegations fail to state a claim that this conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, especially

Eldridge v. Bouchard

645 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Oct 9, 1986

To succeed in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the federal law. Parratt v. … Thus, the evidence clearly supports the need for the differential in Division Seven so that VDSP can remain competitive.

Crenshaw v. Lister

566 F. Supp. 2d 1334 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 15, 2008

Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities “as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To defeat defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, plaintiff must establish two elements.

Fahle v. Braslow

913 F. Supp. 145 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 29, 1996

Braslow claims that he is immune from the plaintiffs civil suit in his individual capacity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Harlow v.

Adams v. Bouchard

591 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Dec 4, 2008

Qualiñed Immunity Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation” if the complained of behavior did not violate clearly established law. Mitchell v.

Transmirra Products Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.

26 F.R.D. 572 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 1960

No concerted action or agreement to violate plaintiff’s confidence has been established. … However, the two are clearly distinct and reflect different policy considerations. In Scourtes v. Fred W.

Howard v. Schoberle

907 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 5, 1995

Qualified Immunity The City Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. … Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense under § 1983 which shields a defendant sued in his individual capacity from liability for civil damages insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Molnar v. Care House

574 F. Supp. 2d 772 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Sep 5, 2008

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and once asserted shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. Armstrong v. … ) whether that right was clearly established.”

Hefti v. McGrath

784 F. Supp. 1426 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 31, 1992

The grant of such immunity would be proper because there is no indication that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that their actions, taken pursuant to an order of the Tax Court, violated a clearly established … Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 528 , 105 S.Ct. at 2816 (officials are immune unless "the law clearly proscribed the actions" they took).