Case law

Manzanares v. Roosevelt Cnty. Adult Det. Ctr.

331 F. Supp. 3d 1260 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 30, 2018

Although the Tenth Circuit has recognized a sliding scale for qualified immunity's clearly established inquiry, see Casey v. … Fitzgerald , when the Supreme Court moved to an objective test, the clearly established prong became a part of the qualified immunity test.

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, M. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist.

300 F. Supp. 3d 857 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 13, 2018

In analyzing qualified immunity claims, the Supreme Court has "repeatedly told courts ... to not define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Mullenix v. … "[T]o evaluate the 'clearly established law' prong of the qualified immunity test, the court must ask whether, at the time of the incident, the law clearly established that such conduct would violate the right."

Duca v. Martins

941 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 20, 1996

Since defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on their federal .claims, and Duca has not identified any distinct right clearly established by state law, defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity on his Massachusetts … As demonstrated in the present section of this opinion, the typical non-Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether the particular right implicated is "clearly established.”

Fuqua v. Turner

District Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 29, 2019

“Once the defendant establishes that he was acting within his discretionary authority, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee v. … Fugue [sic] to show that marshal Collier’s [sic] actions violated clearly established constitutional law.”)). The burden therefore shifts to plaintiff “to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.”

Vollette v. Watson

937 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 2013

However, the same qualified immunity test that requires this Court to ask “whether a given right was clearly established requires [the Court] to define that right ‘at a high level of particularity.’ ” Id. … immunity because the controlling law was not “clearly established.”

Burruss v. Riley

192 F. Supp. 3d 655 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Jun 14, 2016

State officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability for performing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To defeat qualified immunity in the mental health seizure context, a plaintiff must show that the “right allegedly violated was ‘clearly established’ in more than just a general sense.” Id.

Dixon v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

(PC) Trehearne v. Huggett

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

1 parole revocation acts like a police officer applying for an arrest warrant and is therefore entitled 2 to qualified immunity); Thornton v. … arising from the duty to supervise parolees is 9 covered by qualified immunity[.]”). 10 Plaintiff’s allegations in both claims two and three that he has been arrested and returned

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53

366 F. Supp. 3d 1014 · District Court, E.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2019

. 5 In general, qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages " 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … of qualified immunity. 6 C.

Cronin v. Peterson

288 F. Supp. 3d 970 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 24, 2018

"Clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity "should not be defined at a high level of generality ... [but] must be particularized to the facts of the case." Lyons v. … violated a clearly established constitutional right."

GOFAN JUNIOR v. PEREKSTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have … This though does not end this Court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Murphy v. Middlesex Cnty.

361 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … Thus, to establish qualified immunity, the MCPO Defendants are expected to address these cases and any similar cases in showing whether the rights implicated by this case may be considered clearly established.

Kemp v. Liebel

229 F. Supp. 3d 828 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 2017

To survive summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish that the right they claim was clearly established in this judicial circuit. Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 767. … Thus we hold that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the “clearly established” standard sufficient to defeat Mr. Liebel’s qualified immunity defense to their claims.

Henry v. Purnell

428 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. Maryland · Apr 21, 2006

Second, if the answer to the first question is yes, they are to further inquire “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Purnell does not contend that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it is not clearly established that shooting someone with a handgun in the belief that a Taser is being fired constitutes a Fourth Amendment

Caretolive v. Von Eschenbach

525 F. Supp. 2d 952 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 4, 2007

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages as long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Instead, to establish that a right was clearly established in a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must look first to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and then to the case law of this circuit.

Sundquist v. Nebraska

122 F. Supp. 3d 876 · District Court, D. Nebraska · Aug 10, 2015

Schuldt and Vierk contend that, in 2013, it was not clearly established that this violated Sundquist’s rights, and therefore, they argue, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Meyers v. Baltimore County

981 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, D. Maryland · Nov 1, 2013

Further, defendants maintained that, “ ‘[i]f the court finds that Officer Mee violated the Fourth Amendment then he is still entitled to qualified immunity because such an interpretation of the law was not clearly established … “Qualified immunity extends to protect officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ” Williams v.

Harris v. City of Balch Springs

9 F. Supp. 3d 690 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 28, 2014

Conversely, an official’s conduct is not protected by qualified immunity if, in light of clearly established pre-existing law, it was apparent the conduct, when undertaken, would be a violation of the right at issue. … If “the pleadings on their face show an unreasonable violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” assertion of a qualified immunity defense is insufficient to sustain a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Lucas v. The City of Reynoldsburg

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 2025

because they violated no clearly established right. … Thus, an official sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the

Drennon v. Blades

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 26, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from personal liability for on-the-job conduct so long as the conduct is objectively reasonable and does not violate an inmate’s clearly-established federal … ”; and (2) whether that right was clearly established.