Case law

Pendleton v. Goord

849 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2012

Legal Standard Government actors may be shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, i.e., if their “conduct did not violate plaintiffs clearly established rights, or if it would have been objectively … Defendants argue that the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley did not clearly establish, for the purposes of qualified immunity, that the administrative imposition of a period of PRS violated a constitutional right.

Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, Missouri

75 F.4th 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 28, 2023

“To defeat qualified immunity, [Brandy] must prove that: ‘(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to [him], demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established … But just because the law is clearly established does not mean there was a constitutional violation.

Clem v. COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VA

150 F. Supp. 2d 888 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 17, 2001

right involved “at the appropriate level of specificity.” 12 Once this is done, the qualified immunity analysis proceeds to ascertain whether the right so defined was clearly established at the time of the incident. … If the right was not clearly established in the law at the time, no further inquiry is necessary, as qualified immunity is warranted under these circumstances. See Saucier, 121 S.Ct. at 2157.

Peter Clayton McClendon v. City of Columbia, City of Columbia James R. Carney

305 F.3d 314 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 5, 2002

established law, and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. … entitled to qualified immunity, finding that “the law on third-party entry into homes was [not] clearly established in April 1992.”

Coates v. Powell

639 F.3d 471 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 8, 2011

Nevertheless, the court granted Glandon qualified immunity, finding that the law did not clearly establish “at the time of this incident that an officer was required to leave a private home in the middle of a child neglect … “[Qualified immunity protects 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

Osborne v. Seymour

164 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶41 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Sugg v. Albuquerque Public School District

128 N.M. 1 · New Mexico Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 1999

Qualified immunity is subject to the collateral order doctrine which grants this Court appellate jurisdiction over suits barred by qualified immunity because qualified immunity is a final bar to suit and is therefore immediately … that the law was clearly established at the time when the alleged violation occurred.

Bird v. Dzurenda

131 F.4th 787 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

We conclude that such a challenge fails to allege a violation of clearly established law and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. I. … “[I]n the prison context,” we have said that the “prohibition against retaliatory punishment” may violate “clearly established law” for qualified immunity purposes. Chavez v.

Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities University of California Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory, Alfredo Devargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. T.R. Hook, Individually and in His Official Capacity Don Hardwick, Individually and in His Official Capacity, and the United States Department of Energy John Does, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard One Through Two, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Gary Granere, Acting Area Manager-Department of Energy Los Alamos Area Office University of California Donald Kerr, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Ed. C. Walterscheid, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory John S. Herrington Robert Pogna, Employee Los Alamos National Laboratory

844 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Apr 7, 1988

to qualified immunity. … If the law was not clearly established at the time defendants acted, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id.; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 524 , 105 S.Ct. at 2814 .

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

Legal Standard – Qualified Immunity 13 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct 14 violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Ramirez–Palmer, 25 301 F.3d 1043, 1053 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis—whether the constitutional right 27 was clearly established at

Thornhill v. Breazeale

88 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. Mississippi · Feb 10, 2000

Plaintiffs, therefore, have alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right and satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity test. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez

830 F.3d 38 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Jul 19, 2016

Clearly Established Law Appellants would still be entitled to qualified immunity if the right they violated was not "clearly established" at the time of their conduct. … establishes' law for the purposes of a qualified immunity analysis").

Kyle v. Bedlion

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

Jerry Lynn Young v. Neil B. Biggers, Jr., J.W. Collins

938 F.2d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 26, 1991

Public officers “are shielded 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.” Lynch v. … Herring is entitled to a qualified immunity as Sheriff.

Strange v. Spokane County

171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012

The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.

Trenisha Webster v. Jennifer Westlake

41 F.4th 1004 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. … Although the detectives violated Webster’s Fourth Amendment rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity if the right was not clearly established on October 16, 2018. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 244.

William Manery v. Jason Lee

124 F.4th 1073 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

An official will be protected by qualified immunity “un- less the plaintiff shows: ‘(1) that the official violated a statu- tory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the … It was not clearly established that Lieutenant Lee’s use of deadly force was unreasonable, and, accordingly, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Emerson v. City of New York

740 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2010

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct did not violate clearly-established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or ( … If the right is not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, then government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity. See Safford Unified School District v.

DANIELS v. COOKE

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 12, 2022

In other words, qualified immunity is appropriate when the clearly established law, as applied to the facts, "would have left objectively reasonable officials in a state of uncertainty." Horshaw v. … Under some "extraordinary circumstances," an official may be entitled to qualified immunity based on reasonable ignorance of clearly established law governing the official's conduct. Harlow v.

JL ex rel. Thompson v. New Mexico Department of Health

169 F. Supp. 3d 1194 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 4, 2016

Although qualified immunity is most often raised at the summary judgment stage, the Tenth Circuit has recognized the propriety of raising a qualified immunity defense in a motion to dismiss. … Defendants argue that they are shielded by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims because the rights that Plaintiffs assert were not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct that