Case law

(PC) Dawson v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2022

It is unclear from the allegations 19 that plaintiff qualifies for a medical order for single-cell status and, regardless, the complaint 20 establishes that custody staff has determined that plaintiff qualifies for single-cell … Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (statutory 27 language permits sua sponte, pre-service dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity as well as 28 absolute immunity).

Jones v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 9, 2022

“Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages 21 unless their conduct violates ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 22 which a reasonable person would have known.’” … Second, 27 the Court must determine whether the right was clearly established.

Davis v. City of Covington

District Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 13, 2024

Under federal law, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the caselaw existing at the time of their actions clearly established that they violated the … And as a matter of law, Lusardi is entitled to qualified immunity regarding this use of force because Davis has again failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that Lusardi’s conduct was clearly established as having

Allaedhin Qandah v. Michael McKee

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 8, 2022

Koehler, 616 F.3d 855, 861 (8th Cir. 2010) (limiting appellate review of denial of qualified immunity to determining whether conduct, as factually supported under summary judgment standard, violated a plaintiff’s clearly … established rights).

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 29, 2012

Second, we must ask “whether the right was clearly estab- lished.” Id. A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” … Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitu- tional right—when the officer should have known he was vio- lating the Constitution—does he forfeit qualified immunity.

Hall v. Tollett

128 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 22, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Whether the government official “is protected by qualified immunity turns on ‘the objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in the light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the action

THOMPKINS v. MCKEESPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2025

A police officer, as a government official, is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit unless the officer’s conduct violates a plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights or they were plainly incompetent … defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”).

Martinez v. City of New York

District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 19, 2023

Defendants further argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, both because there exists no clearly established law that a failure to provide medical attention for Plaintiff’s asserted injury rises … The relevant case law need not be factually identical to the case at issue in order to be “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity, and officials “can still be on notice that their conduct violates established

Karen Burns v. David Loranger

907 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 29, 1990

Thus, appellate assessment of a qualified immunity claim is apportioned into two analytic components. … Clearly Established Law At the time of the constitutional violation asserted in the present case, clearly established fourth amendment law entitled Burns to be free from any unreasonable search of her person.

Alford v. Deffendoll

District Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jan 24, 2025

That case instructed, in pertinent part: Where a defendant moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must first11 identify a clearly established right alleged to have been violated … established right) when trying to overcome a qualified immunity defense asserted in the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Admiral Insurance v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona

881 F.2d 1486 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 9, 1989

Based upon established principles underlying the nature and purpose of the attorney-client privilege, we hold that the district court’s ruling is clearly incorrect and results in an unwarranted extension of the law. … The work-product rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3).

Mancuso v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

808 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2011

When analyzing this prong of a prima facie case, courts have used as a starting point the applicable criteria that the owner has established regarding who is “qualified.” … Other cases, including some cited by plaintiffs, have also used relevant criteria that the owner established in analyzing the “qualified” prong. See, e.g., Mencer v.

Donovan v. Bel-Loc Diner

780 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 18, 1985

The evidence as a whole clearly suffices to establish the existence of a pattern or practice, at least as a "just and reasonable inference." … While, again, there was some evidence tending to show that some employees may not have been victims of the general pattern that was established prima facie, it clearly did not constitute the sort of evidence of precise work

Nikos Kidis v. Jean Reid

976 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 25, 2020

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that government officials are generally entitled to immunity from civil damages as long as they did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights”); see … ] from raising the qualified immunity defense on appeal from a final judgment.”).

Rosa v. Bonk

District Court, D. Colorado · Aug 19, 2024

“The law is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, [though the decision need not be precisely on point] or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows … Second, “the plaintiff must show that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.” Id. The Court may examine the two prongs of qualified immunity in either order. Pearson v.

Barrows v. Collins

District Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 15, 2019

Qualified Immunity The Court need not engage in a qualified-immunity analysis in this case, as it already found that none of Barrows’s claims amount to the deprivation of a constitutional right. … McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that an official may be entitled to qualified immunity if the facts show that the plaintiff has been deprived of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly

Brick v. Estancia Municipal School District

District Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 20, 2020

violated a clearly established law. … However, the subjective good or bad faith of the actor is irrelevant to the question of whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, which is an objective inquiry. Pompeo v.

Livermore v. Lubelan

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 7, 2007

alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law.”). … To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had notice that the manner in which the force was used had been previously proscribed: [T]here is no doubt that [precedent] clearly establishes

David Partington v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company

443 F.3d 334 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 30, 2006

Id. 18 Applying this "bright line" to the present case, we conclude that Congress did not clearly indicate that the failure of a plaintiff to qualify as a "person purchasing" was a jurisdictional limitation. … Arbaugh, 126 S.Ct. at 1245 n. 11 (citing statutes in which Congress clearly did limit jurisdiction on the basis of certain factors).

ESTATE OF

430 F.3d 140 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 30, 2005

Therefore, it is appropriate for us to rely on that decision in our analysis of whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, as the contours of the right at issue here — as set forth in Sharrar — were "clearly … More specifically, the second question requires us to ask whether the right the defendant stands accused of violating was "clearly established" at the time of the incident in question.