Case law

BUCEK v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 18, 2023

The individual County Defendants separately raise qualified immunity defenses. … Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.”). II.

Palafox

District Court, D. Arizona · Mar 26, 2026

Qualified Immunity 22 A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity from damages for 23 civil liability if his conduct does not violate clearly established … The “qualified immunity 3 inquiry” asks if the right was clearly established at the relevant time.

TALLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2024

be entitled to qualified immunity because the Amended Complaint has failed to clearly identify how the clerk violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. See Mirabella v. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”); Williams v.

Robbie Autery v. Kevin Davis

355 F. App'x 253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2009

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their discretionary actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Lewis v. … Even in the absence of Terry, Sheriff Davis would still be entitled to qualified immunity. In Foy v.

Capogrosso v. Gelbstein

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Eighth, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the State Defendants “fail to articulate the ‘clearly established right’ upon which they base their qualified … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

RAKES v. ROEDERER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 18, 2022

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless he violated a clearly established constitutional right." Dockery v. … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity where: (1) "a closely analogous case establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional"; or (2) "the violation is so obvious that a reasonable state actor

Deaullandy Coleman v. Sergeant Jones

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

Nevertheless, the court went on to grant summary judgment to the defendant prison officials on qualified immunity grounds, holding that they had violated no “clearly established” right. … See, e.g., Wall, 741 F.3d at 502 (explaining that right to religious dietary accommodations in prison is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes); Lovelace v.

J.P. v. County of Alameda

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 2, 2020

that the official has violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.” … See Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117 (holding that qualified immunity applies if no clearly established law exists on the issue); see also White v. Pauly, 137 S.

Alejandro Hernandez v. The City of El Paso

397 F. App'x 954 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 20, 2010

Because we conclude that Defendants’ actions did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, we reverse the denial of their motion for qualified immunity, and remand to the district court for entry … such activity violates clearly established constitutional rights.”

Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Township of Richmond

641 F.3d 673 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

P. 12(b)(6), so we review an assertion of qualified immunity to determine only whether the complaint ‘adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.’” (quoting Mitchell v. … When the qualified immunity defense is raised at the pleading stage, the court must determine only whether the complaint “adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law.”

Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia

504 F.3d 405 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 1, 2007

a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.”) … According ly, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity here “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Andre Blaylock “in light of clearly established law and the information

Ronald Mendoza v. Sherman Block, Los Angeles County

27 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 31, 1994

“[W]hen qualified immunity is at stake, [however], a court must first determine whether the law has been clearly established.” Romero, 931 F.2d at 628 . … Objective Reasonableness If the law governing an official’s conduct is clearly established, qualified immunity is available if a reasonable official could have believed the conduct at issue was lawful under that clearly established

Peggy Kelley v. Mark Myler, Gene Patrick, Ralph Bell and Hurricane Foods, Inc.

149 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1998

The court also found that because the arrest was reasonable, the officers did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … Whether a defendant is entitled to a qualified immunity defense depends on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant’s actions assessed in light of clearly established law.

SNUKIS v. TAYLOR

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 27, 2022

To determine whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether as of September 13, 2019, the law had clearly established that a police officer violates an arrestee's Fourth Amendment … As Plaintiffs note, in 2017, the Seventh Circuit clearly established that an officer's failure to take any action in light of a detainee's serious medical need precludes qualified immunity. 872 F.3d at 460.

Blackwell-Esters v. City of Detroit

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 14, 2025

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … App’x 437, 447 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding defendants waived arguments as to “clearly established” prong where defendants’ qualified immunity argument was a “one-and-a-half page statement of the law with no attempt

Darnell Dukes v. v. Lizaola

486 F. App'x 642 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Oct 16, 2012

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on Dukes’s pepper spray decontamination claim because it would not have been clear to reasonable prison officials in defendants’ position … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (an official is entitled to qualified immunity if the “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (citation

Jensen v. City of Oxnard

145 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 1998

Qualified Immunity All of the individual defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Oliveira v. Mayer

23 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Apr 28, 1994

Qualified Immunity As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe … In the pending case, the District Court ruled as a matter of law that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because “the law [was] clearly established” and “no reasonable officer would believe that the [defendants

United States v. Fred Romano

583 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 11, 1978

... is very general in nature and may implicate only low-level government employees” and that “because of the close relationship established by your Subcommittee with our investigators, proof that the immunized testimony … While the Government clearly would not be entitled to rely entirely on one or two conclusory affidavits to carry its burden, see United States v.

Roska v. Peterson

328 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 29, 2003

At the same time, where the right is clearly established, a defendant should only “rarely” be able to succeed with a qualified immunity defense. 27 V-1 Oil Co. v. … principle was “clearly established.”