Case law

Scott v. Central Maine Power Co.

709 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, D. Maine · Mar 13, 1989

Thus, the Court broadened the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity established in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). … In light of the holding that none of Scott's federal claims can survive the absolute immunity defense, the court does not consider whether any of Bradford’s actions may be subject to qualified immunity. 12 .

Lojeski v. Boandl

602 F. Supp. 918 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 23, 1985

Therefore, defendants’ reliance on the sovereign immunity doctrine is misplaced. Defendants next argue that they are entitled to the qualified immunity de *921 fense established by the Supreme Court in Scheuer v. … However, it is the law of this circuit that the qualified immunity defense cannot be determined on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion. Thompson, supra; Fidtler v.

Benedict v. Town of Newburgh

95 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 11, 2000

Soldenwagner, 19 F.3d 573 (11th Cir.1994) (right not clearly established in 1994 for purposes of qualified immunity). … Qualified Immunity It is inappropriate to resolve the issue of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation. The issue appears to be somewhat fact intensive.

Wilson v. City of Chanute

43 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, D. Kansas · Feb 23, 1999

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Once the defendant has properly raised the defense of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, [the court applies] a two-part framework. … right claimed to have been violated was clearly established on March 7, 1996.

Millet v. United States Department of the Army

245 F. Supp. 2d 344 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Dec 13, 2002

The testimony of Colonel Simmons along with USARSO’s published Memorandum of Instruction on eligibility requirements for ACSS, clearly established that the *358 Army had a rational, non-discriminatory system established for … Plaintiff cites several provisions which they contend establish the Court's jurisdiction over this claim. See Complaint & 3. None of those provisions, however, contains the requisite wavier of sovereign immunity.

Frane v. Kijowski

992 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 27, 1998

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct *990 does not violate clearly established statutory … Once a defendant has asserted a defense of qualified immunity, courts ask: 1) whether the alleged conduct violated a specific constitutional right; and 2) whether constitutional standards were clearly established at the time

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

319 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2004

First, the act of extending the deadlines clearly involves “an element of judgment or choice.” Macharía, 334 F.3d at 65 . … Moreover, the decision as to when and whether to take enforcement action against unapproved drugs qualifies as discretionary.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified -10- immunity. … Banks’ vehicle stop and arrest of Bostic was well within the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment and therefore Banks could not have known he was violating a clearly established constitutional right; indeed,

Sommer v. United States

713 F. Supp. 2d 1191 · District Court, S.D. California · May 10, 2010

Plaintiff alleges that she was deprived of her clearly established rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at ¶ 69. … “When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same ... the immunity that protects them is also the same,” therefore the prosecutors’ actions were only protected by qualified, rather than absolute, immunity.

Childress v. Clement

5 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · May 14, 1998

To establish a violation of either statute, Childress must show that he (1) has a disability, (2) is otherwise qualified for the position, and (3) has experienced some adverse action as a result of his disability. … Plaintiff is also able to meet the third element of the prima facie case expulsion from VCU clearly constitutes an adverse action.

Romeu v. Cohen

121 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 7, 2000

Privileges and Immunities Clause Romeu argues that the UOCAVA and NYEL violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by depriving him of a privilege enjoyed by New York residents^ — the ability to vote by absentee ballot in … The Privilege and Immunities Clause states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2.

Rodriguez v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity In addition, qualified immunity bars claims against public officials for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Compl., ¶¶ 49, 56, 57, violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Parker v. Banner

479 F. Supp. 2d 827 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 22, 2007

The individual city employees were protected by qualified immunity rules, 1 so the plaintiffs only available remedy was the suit against the city. … This would be entirely inconsistent with the idea of qualified immunity, which states that governmental actors are shielded from liability so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Ingenito v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NJ

568 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 19, 1983

In their brief, they only discuss the affirmative defense of "qualified" immunity. Defendants' Brief at 20-22. … The court assumes the individual defendants are not relying upon any other kind of immunity defense. [6] Before reaching the question of the individual's qualified immunity, the court must address the issue of the State of

Ortiz v. San Miguel County

955 F. Supp. 1338 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 29, 1996

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”). … The Court finds that Defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Keller v. Board of Education of the City of Albuquerque

182 F. Supp. 2d 1148 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Nov 20, 2001

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity is a defense that shields government officials who perform discretionary functions from liability for civil damages. Harlow v. … School boards and school officials, including Defendants, perform discretionary functions and are thus entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity- In order for a plaintiff to overcome a claim of qualified immunity

Curry v. New York City Police Department

726 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 11, 2010

Defendant Evangelos Nikiforidis has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known and acted reasonably. Thus, he is protected by qualified immunity. … Defendant Cesar Gonzalez has not violated any clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known and acted reasonably. Thus, he is protected by qualified immunity.

Flaskamp v. Dearborn Public Schools

232 F. Supp. 2d 730 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Nov 5, 2002

This limitation is better known as qualified immunity. … In order to overcome qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show: 1) that she had a clearly established constitutional right; and 2) that “ ‘the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would

La Societe Generale Immobiliere v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency

827 F. Supp. 1431 · District Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 21, 1993

entitled to qualified immunity from liability. … Mataya, 995 F.2d 121, 123 (8th Cir.1993) ("immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage in litigation”). The defendants neither pleaded nor argued qualified immunity prior to trial.

Moore v. Harris County Commissioners Court

378 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 8, 1974

The Fourteenth *1008 Amendment might well be seen as extending protection to an elected and qualified office-holder, but not to a mere aspirant as in Snowden . … This is true, but the new districts were clearly not drawn with any ideal of population equality foremost in mind; the order establishing them itself recites that one contains almost two and one-half times as many people