Case law

Wendell Smith v. Pike County, Kentucky

338 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

The district court held that in the absence of a clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Saucier v.

Onie Pena v. Dallas County Hospital Dist

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Nov 23, 2015

Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) (“Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”). … Qualified immunity thus attaches unless the law is clearly established that the defendant’s conduct amounted to a seizure.

Johnson v. Dobbins

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 17, 2021

“To survive a motion to dismiss on qualified- immunity grounds, the plaintiff must allege facts that ‘plausibly mak[e] out a claim that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established … Here, Plaintiff alleges that the County Defendants violated clearly established law by placing him in solitary confinement without justification. (Doc. No. 67 at 10).

Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human Services

519 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 21, 2008

the alleged violation was not clearly established. … defendant violated clearly established law.”

Kitrich Powell v. James Gibbons

453 F. App'x 712 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 11, 2011

Dismissal was proper on Powell’s claim concerning the opening of his legal mail outside of his presence because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); Sherman v.

Limon v. City of Laredo

District Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 4, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Mace v. … To overcome qualified immunity on his excessive force claim, Christian must show that Officer Martinez violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. Guerra v.

Wallingford v. Olson

592 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jan 25, 2010

Deputy Olson appeals the dis *890 trict court’s denial of qualified immunity. We reverse. I. … a constitutional right’ and (2) whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.

White v. Miyares

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2025

As the Supreme Court has stated, “Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … The qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v.

Woodhead v. Ridener

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jun 8, 2022

to juror to conclude that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right. … However, under the present circumstances, the defendants cannot be said to have violated any clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity. 2.

Molinelli v. Tucker

901 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 9, 1990

The court also rejected the qualified immunity defense, noting, based on testing procedures deemed analogous to urinalysis, that the law was clearly established in October 1986 that the defendants’ conduct was subject to … The right the government official is alleged to have violated is “clearly established,” and hence beyond any qualified immunity, when the “contours” of the right are sufficiently unambiguous so that a reasonable official

Anita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights

858 F.3d 988 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 24, 2017

Qualified immunity. … Because no case clearly established the unlawfulness of the decisions made during Omar’s arrest and detention, the officers involved are entitled to qualified immunity.

(PC) Petillo v. Jasso

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2023

If the law 18 did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment 19 based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … Willden, 26 678 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2012) (qualified immunity analysis requiring (1) determining the 27 contours of the clearly established right at the time of the challenged conduct and (2) examining 1

FREEMAN v. SANCHEZ

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages under section 1983 … clearly established right”).

Kerrin Barrett v. PAE Government Services, Inc.

975 F.3d 416 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 15, 2020

of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Arlington County defendants had probable cause to detain Plaintiff, qualified immunity bars her § 1983 claim under the first prong of the qualified immunity test, and

ZISA v. HAVILAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2020

Haviland does not address whether his alleged constitutional harm violated a clearly established right. “[T]he burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense rests with the defendant.” Thomas v. … App’x 373, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2004) (“To the extent the Supervisory Defendants fail to address the issue [of whether a right was clearly established], therefore, their claim for qualified immunity fails ipso facto.”).

Paez v. Nutsch

District Court, D. Nebraska · May 12, 2022

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or … “Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant carries the burden of proof. The plaintiff, however, must demonstrate that the law is clearly established.” Sparr v.

Lojuk v. Johnson

770 F.2d 619 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1985

and qualified immunity. … Plaintiff argued in the alternative that even if defendants had not violated clearly established constitutional rights, they should be denied qualified immunity because they had violated a state administrative regulation.

McCormick v. Hall

District Court, W.D. Virginia · Sep 8, 2022

qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiff has pleaded a plausible violation of a right clearly established at the time of the incident, Hall is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Jones v. County of Tulare, California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2023

In other words, a “public official is entitled to qualified 9 immunity unless (1) ‘the facts . . . show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right;’ 10 and (2) the right at issue ‘was clearly established … Granting summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity 4 is “improper if, under the plaintiff's version of the facts, and in light of the clearly established law, 5 a reasonable officer could not have believed

Estate of Sylville K Smith v. City of Milwaukee Wisconsin

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 18, 2019

Whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of its alleged violation In establishing the second prong in the qualified immunity analysis, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the constitutional … right was “clearly established.”