Case law

Cowboys for Life v. Sampson

983 F. Supp. 2d 1362 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 21, 2013

The doctrine of qualified immunity is well established. … immunity because the plaintiffs “right to be free from a retaliatory investigation [was] not clearly established.”

Theron v. Board of County Commissioners

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officials from 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.” … Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1087 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[The defendant] violated clearly established law, and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity, if he terminated [the plaintiff] for exercising her free speech rights.”).

Logan v. Oklahoma City Police Department

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2024

Initially, defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Logan’s First Amendment claims because Logan cannot show a violation of clearly established law. … “In other words, general statements of the law can clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes if they apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.” Id.

Farrow v. Weatherford City of

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2025

The Individual Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show he had a “clearly established” constitutional right that they violated.5 They … plaintiffs “failed to identify clearly-established law” as required under the second qualified immunity prong). IV.

Hankins

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · May 1, 2026

However, unlike most affirmative defenses, plaintiff bears “the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial to overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established federal law. … which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.”

Coulter v. Butler

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2025

“‘When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … “Law is clearly established ‘if a plaintiff (1) identifies an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision or (2) shows the clearly established weight of authority from other courts has found the law to be

Lakey v. Taylor

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · May 16, 2024

Finally, because the right at issue is clearly established, officer Miller is not entitled to qualified immunity. … It was clearly established that once Mr.

Parks v. Taylor

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2022

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … For these reasons, and because “the right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing [is] ‘clearly established,’” Mr. Yerby is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Knight v. State of Oklahoma

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 12, 2022

Qualified Immunity – Scully and Sugg Defendants Scully and Sugg also have pending a motion to dismiss, making various arguments including that their actions are shielded by qualified immunity. … Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 336 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting discovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question of clearly established law).

Ali v. Lambert

384 F. Supp. 3d 1321 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Apr 25, 2019

Thus, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that show-when taken as true-the defendant plausibly violated his constitutional rights, which were clearly established … the relevant law is clearly established."

Burke v. Glanz

292 F. Supp. 3d 1235 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 9, 2017

With respect to the second component of the qualified immunity analysis, to show clearly established law, a plaintiff must generally identify a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion which existed at the time of the alleged … Glanz also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Harris

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 7, 2024

“When a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff shows that (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established … support for the notion that the law is clearly established.”).6 Accordingly, Ms. Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim against Ms. Shelton-Denley is barred by qualified immunity.7 B.

Ingram v. Cooper

163 F. Supp. 3d 1133 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 18, 2016

and the law supporting plaintiffs claims was. not clearly established. … For the purpose of qualified immunity, it is clearly established that discrimination against a person because of his or her race would be a clearly established violation of the person’s constitutional *1140 rights.

Silagyi v. Independent School District No 12

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 30, 2023

The Court may consider both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis even though Defendants’ arguments focus on the “clearly established” prong. … Moreover, for purposes of the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity (discussed below), the block quote Plaintiffs cite is insufficient to “create a clearly established weight of authority.” Sandberg v.

Heard v. Bear

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 6, 2020

Federal law as determined by [the] Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);3 (2) “resulted in a decision that . . . involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law,” id.; or … Significantly, an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.

Halley ex rel. J.H. v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma State Department of Human Services

176 F. Supp. 3d 1268 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 31, 2016

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … This law was clearly established by 2014. See, e.g., Estate of B.I.C. v.

Allen v. Town of Colcord

874 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2012

capacity, and Defendants Creech and Denny do not dispute this in their reply. 98 Plaintiff further states that none of the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as they all violated clearly established Constitutional … qualified immunity context, a plaintiff must allege facts, if assumed to be true, that are sufficient to show that the defendants violated a plaintiffs constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established

Caviness v. Johnson

614 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2008

Caviness also challenges Johnson’s claim to qualified immunity, contending the law was clearly established that excessive damage to his property can give rise to a constitutional claim and that the seizure of the knives and … Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff bears a heavy burden to establish that a defendant has violated clearly established law. Hannula v.

Soderstrand v. Oklahoma ex rel. Board of Regents of Oklahoma Agricultural & Mechanical Colleges

463 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 2006

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … right was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.

Douglas v. Miller

864 F. Supp. 2d 1205 · District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2012

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability in federal claims unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … clearly established at the time.”