Case law

Abdush-Shahid v. Coughlin

933 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, N.D. New York · Jun 24, 1996

The defendants also assert that in any event they are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … Although the plaintiffs right to prompt medical treatment was clearly established at all times relevant to this suit, the defendants are still entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, however, if they can

DeLeon v. Little

981 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 5, 1997

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil suits arising from the performance of their discretionary functions when their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Defendant argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields her from liability because Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant’s alleged conduct violated any clearly established constitutional rights, or in the alternative

Vickery v. Jones

878 F. Supp. 1179 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 7, 1995

, the defendants were put in the position of possibly *1186 losing their qualified immunity if they did not change their policy. … As discussed above, the award of qualified immunity precludes an award of damages.

Bryant v. Ciminelli

267 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 26, 2017

Defendants raise the issue of qualified immunity. (Dkt. 3-2 at 10). Qualified immunity can be established by the facts alleged in a complaint. Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 97 (2d Cir. 2015). … See id. at 92 (“Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages when one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively

Chandler v. Neff

298 F. 515 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 5, 1924

The issue raised by the petition as a whole/ is clearly the assertion of a political right granted by the Constitution of the United States and denied by an act of the state of Texas. … This might render it unnecessary to decide the second question, but it has been well and clearly presented, and even though it may be unnecessary to decide it, nevertheless the parties, because of the importance of the questions

Walker v. Woodford

593 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … This, too, supports their defense of qualified immunity.

O'QUINN v. Chambers County, Tex.

636 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Jun 4, 1986

Qualified Immunity Defendant Morris asserts qualified immunity pursuant to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … Plaintiffs claims of retaliation and intimidation under § 1983 and § 1985 state violations of clearly established law; therefore, defendant Morris is not immune from suit. V.

Gretzula v. Camden County Technical Schools Board of Education

965 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 2013

This statement came in the context of assessing whether an interlocutory appeal regarding qualified immunity was timely when the district court had not addressed qualified immunity because it had improperly characterized … Thomas is inapposite because it involved a “pleading as to which a qualified immunity defense cannot reasonably be framed.” Id. at 289.

Massasoit v. Carter

439 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 2006

As for Butler’s assertion of qualified immunity, a police officer is immune from claims brought under § 1983 unless his conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Therefore, just as Butler’s qualified immunity claim failed on plaintiffs’ excessive force claims under § 1983, his public officer immunity claim fails as to the state law claims. 4.

Barclay v. Michalsky

451 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 12, 2006

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move for summary judgment as to the § 1983 claim against the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds. … “The qualified immunity doctrine shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Jernigan v. Richard

907 F. Supp. 2d 998 · District Court, D. Arizona · Jan 11, 2012

Qualified Immunity A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) he or she deprived the Plaintiff of a significant constitutional right; and (2) that constitutional right was “clearly established … Therefore, the Defendants argue, because even judges disagree about whether there was a Brady *1032 violation in this case, the right in this factual setting is not clearly established and they are entitled to qualified immunity

S & M BRANDS, INC. v. Summers

393 F. Supp. 2d 604 · District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Oct 6, 2005

The threshold question for determining whether Parker immunity attaches, therefore, is whether the action in question qualifies as an affirmative act by the state itself. … In the case at bar, Plaintiffs’ obligation to place substantial amounts of money into an escrow account for a period of twenty-five years clearly qualifies as a deprivation of property, regardless of whether they maintain

White v. Engler

188 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 19, 2001

Americans qualified for merit awards. … In this Court’s opinion, Plaintiffs have sufficiently established that the injury, i.e., the failure to qualify for a merit award, can be fairly traced to Defendants’ actions, ie., reliance on the MEAP Test as the main criteria

Fulcher v. City of Wichita

445 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 18, 2006

Immunity Defendant Williams moves to dismiss plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim on the grounds of qualified immunity. … clearly established at the time and supervisor was not entitled to qualified immunity); Johnson v.

Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

177 F.R.D. 491 · District Court, D. Kansas · Dec 23, 1997

The advisory committee for the work product rule specifically stated: “Materials assembled in the ordinary course of business ... or for other nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by this subdivision … Therefore, the court concludes that the magistrate did not clearly err in finding that the documents are not protected by work product immunity. C.

Pliakos v. Manchester, N H , et al.

2003 DNH 118 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 15, 2003

Qualified Immunity. … Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Salas Garcia v. Cesar Perez

777 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 31, 1991

State actors are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 if their challenged behavior did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights “of which a reasonable person would have … In the lexicon of qualified immunity, there is room for mistaken judgments”).

Mastromatteo v. Simock

866 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 27, 1994

Qualified Immunity The United States Supreme Court has noted that government officials, when performing discretionary duties, are entitled to a qualified immunity, one that “shield[s] them from civil damages liability as … Accordingly, a government official will not be immune from a lawsuit if the law violated is one that is clearly established, such that a reasonable official would have known he was acting in violation of it. Good v.

Anderson v. Gates

20 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2013

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … Here, Anderson fails to demonstrate a clearly established right, hence the Court need only reach the second prong.

Levy v. Alfano

47 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 29, 1999

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 ...” … were clearly established — the official is entitled to qualified immunity.