Case law

Medina-Claudio v. Pereira

443 F. Supp. 2d 208 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 19, 2006

Pereira insists, however, that he was not personally involved in the acts described in the complaint, and that he must be afforded qualified immunity since there are no allegations against him in the complaint. … Accordingly, Pereira’s request for dismissal for his lack of personal involvement and for being qualified immune is DENIED.

Lyles v. Micenko

468 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2006

This “qualified immunity” acts as a defense for governmental officials, including police officers, from claims of liability under § 1983. Anderson v. … Lyles, the Court finds that the Officers would be entitled to qualified immunity because their decision to arrest and charge Ms. Lyles was reasonable. See Hunter v.

Hawkins v. Steward

653 F. Supp. 868 · District Court, D. Colorado · Feb 17, 1987

In the alternative, defendant *869 argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was performing discretionary actions which did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable … Although he argues against absolute immunity, plaintiff agrees defendant is entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Kmetz v. State Historical Society

304 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 3, 2004

Even if the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged injury, a public official may still be entitled to qualified immunity if he makes an objectively reasonable mistake about what the law requires … established at the time defendants acted, they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Gunasekera v. Irwin

748 F. Supp. 2d 816 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 6, 2010

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

Costenbader-Jacobson v. Pennsylvania

227 F. Supp. 2d 304 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 2002

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory and constitutional rights, the existence of which a reasonable person would have known

Isajewicz v. Bucks County Department of Communications

851 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 1994

An official may be entitled to qualified immu nity if it is shown that the allegedly unlawful action does not violate laws that were clearly established at the time of the conduct. Anderson v. … Therefore, Kostmayer did not violate a clearly estab­lished constitutional or statutory right and is entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

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.”

Foster v. Anderson

165 F. Supp. 3d 781 · District Court, N.D. Iowa · Feb 29, 2016

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [section] 1983 claim unless his or her conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have … “To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that ‘(1) there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ ” Davis

Ruggiero v. Prack

168 F. Supp. 3d 495 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 11, 2016

Even in cases involving violations of a clearly established right, “officials may still successfully assert qualified immunity if they can show that their actions were ’objectively reasonable.’” Williams v. … Likewise, defendant Donahue is not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs due process claim because plaintiffs right to an impartial hearing officer was also clearly established at the time of the November 2010 hearing

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 2019

Thus, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established at the time.” Id. at 231. … by qualified immunity.

Arlio v. Lively

392 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Sep 28, 2005

He seeks judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity [Doc. # 63] and excessive damages [Doc. # 65]. … The defendant misapprehends the standard for qualified immunity in a First Amendment retaliation case.

Lum v. County of San Joaquin

756 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2010

In the absence of a clearly established special relationship, the court should apply the multi-factor public policy analysis first articulated in Rowland v. … Collins is clearly distinguishable, addressing as it does the question of hiring and firing. In any event, here plaintiffs rely on long-standing practice to establish authority, a matter not addressed by Collins . 4 .

Pickering v. Virginia State Police

59 F. Supp. 3d 742 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 3, 2014

The Supreme Court has stated that Ex parte Young established “an important limit on sovereign immunity” which has “for more than a century” permitted “federal courts to vindicate federal rights.” Va. … Causation To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (2) he was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA; (3) his performance

Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority

728 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Aug 5, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity, however, does protect public officials performing discretionary functions from, civil liability if they can show that their conduct did “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Although it often will be appropriate to conduct the qualified immunity analysis by first determining whether a constitutional violation occurred and by next determining whether the constitutional right was clearly established

Hernandez v. City of El Paso

662 F. Supp. 2d 596 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 9, 2009

However, qualified immunity shields state actors performing discretionary functions from liability unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … When public officials, as here, plead the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiffs burden to overcome the defense by establishing that the officials’ alleged conduct violated clearly established law

Rosales v. City of Phoenix

202 F. Supp. 2d 1055 · District Court, D. Arizona · Sep 9, 1999

Qualified Immunity “Officers are entitled to qualified immunity even if they acted unconstitutionally, as long as a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct lawful.” Alexander v. … immunity.

Jones v. Hobbs

864 F. Supp. 2d 808 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 5, 2012

Qualified Immunity As the magistrate explained, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right which was “clearly established” at the time. … diet suiting his religious beliefs was not a clearly established right.

United States v. Melekh

190 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 28, 1960

The defendant neither qualifies for nor claims such immunity. … While it will clearly be necessary that all officials, whatever their rank, should be granted immunity from legal process in respect of acts done in the course of their official duties, whether in the country of which they

Manos v. Caira

162 F. Supp. 2d 979 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2001

police officers do not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights. … Further, because defendants do not address whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the deprivation, the Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity argument has not been properly raised