Case law

Bronche Johnson v. California Department of Corrections

384 F. App'x 625 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 17, 2010

The district court properly entered summary judgment on Johnson’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on qualified immunity because the pertinent law was not clearly established … Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822 (2009) (holding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); see also Warsoldier v.

Barrett v. Robydek

District Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 29, 2024

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … However, “[w]hen a qualified immunity defense is asserted at the pleading stage, we have historically found that the inquiry should be limited to the ‘clearly established’ prong of the analysis if feasible.”

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

Eric Earnest, Jr. v. Genesee Cnty., Mich.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jan 28, 2021

constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established.” … clearly established).

Mattson v. Streibel

District Court, D. Idaho · Dec 20, 2023

violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless a plaintiff proves: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Andrew B. Bloom v. Melissa Peacock

498 F. App'x 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2012

Further, a defense of qualified immunity may be addressed in a motion to dismiss, which will be granted if the “complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” St. George v. … To determine if an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must determine (i) whether the plaintiff’s allegations establish a constitutional violation, and (ii) whether the constitutional violation was clearly

Nathan Freidhoff, Individually, Michelle Freidhoff and Todd Freidhoff, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of Nathan Freidhoff v. Johnston Community School District, Mitch Eagles and Brett Becker

Court of Appeals of Iowa · May 13, 2026

established at the time of the alleged violation.” … established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Carol Vincent v. City of Sulphur

805 F.3d 543 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 28, 2015

To defeat qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law. See id. at 323. … In summary, as we have explained, the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Ruben Sebastian v. Javier Ortiz

918 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

Qualified immunity shields 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 would have … Now to the “clearly established” question. A plaintiff can show the violation of a clearly established right in a few ways. See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1350–52.

Daniels v. CITY OF HARTFORD, ALA.

645 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 18, 2009

In the context of qualified immunity cases that turn on the presence or absence of probable cause, an official has not committed a clearly established constitutional violation if either actual or arguable probable cause existed … a clearly established constitutional right. 12 Thus, the Court finds that Sheriff Olsen is protected from suit for the conditions of confinement at the Dale County Detention Facility by the doctrine of qualified immunity

Caprita v. Dunaway

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 12, 2024

“To show that the official violated a ‘clearly established’ right, the plaintiff must ‘define with specificity the clearly established legal rule that the officers allegedly violated.’” Paul v. Whitley Cnty. Det. … In response to Defendant’s claim to qualified immunity, Plaintiff cites no case law that would tend to show Dunaway violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be handcuffed like he was.

United States v. Lopez

147 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jun 16, 1998

Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), the Court established the requirements for attacking the composition of a jury: In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show … It clearly did not deprive him of a fair trial. Defense counsel was able to cope effectively with the shortened period of preparation.

Strickland v. Shotts

408 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 24, 2004

Immunity Defense In Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the plaintiff raised the potential issue of Shotts’ ability to raise an *639 affirmative defense of qualified immunity … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (establishing the objective standard for qualified immunity) and Rakovich v.

Ian Tuuamalemalo v. Shahann Greene

946 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dec 24, 2019

established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. … Scott moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 4, 2009

ASHCROFT lates the Constitution, we should still grant him qualified immunity because that constitutional right was not “clearly established” in March 2003, when al-Kidd was arrested. We disagree. … Ohio, was certainly clearly established.

Cunningham ex rel Gaines v. Baltimore Cnty.

Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jun 25, 2024

Because the law was not clearly established at the time, qualified immunity is proper. … Alternatively, the Defendants argued that Corporal Ruby was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

Douglas Echols v. Spencer Lawton

913 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2019

The district court also ruled that Lawton enjoys qualified immunity because Echols's complaint failed to allege the violation of a right that was clearly established when Lawton sent his letter. *1319 II. … To defeat Lawton's qualified immunity, Echols must also prove that Lawton violated a constitutional right that "was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct." Plumhoff v.

Hsien I. Peng v. Mei Chin Penghu Jonathan Hu S. Gage, Los Angeles County Deputy, Badge No. 406857, Sued Individually

335 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 10, 2003

The first order granted Deputy Gage qualified immunity from suit. … Qualified Immunity Next, we address whether Gage was properly'granted qualified immunity.

Lucas v. Otsego County Sheriff Richard J. Devlin Jr.

139 A.D.3d 1196 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 2016

Supreme Court determined that, among other things, defendants were shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity and granted their motion. Plaintiff now appeals. We affirm. … Defendants nevertheless have qualified immunity for their conduct if they did "not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" (Mullenix v Luna, US

Geronimo Lozano v. State of New Jersey

9 F.4th 239 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 16, 2021

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Rather, we may only “review whether the set of facts identified by the district court is sufficient to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Id.