Case law

Brown v. Harris 6034

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 2023

Qualified immunity protects officers when the law underlying the alleged violations is not clearly established. … Accordingly, the relevant right was not clearly established and Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Banks v. Booher

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 5, 2025

The doctrine of 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 … Defendants do not explain their argument for qualified immunity, beyond asserting that plaintiffs’ claims do not violate a “clearly established right of Native American/Indigenous inmates to have

Jones v. Milsteen

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 27, 2023

Finally, on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Jones’ right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the violation, because a robust consensus of persuasive Court of Appeals … doctrine, and its contention that qualified immunity bars the claim is without merit.

Murphy v. Grochowski

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 28, 2022

constitutional rights violation, and if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.). … Based on the defendants’ failure to fully develop their argument as to qualified immunity, the report finds that they have not established this affirmative defense. See Burns v. Pa.

Garanin v. City of Scranton

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … the right was clearly established.

Moorehead v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ALLENTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 2024

Coffey, 905 F.3d 138, 144 (3d Cir. 2018) (granting qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law regarding electronic communications in the workplace); United States v. … But if they weren’t, these unsettled issues would weigh heavily in favor of qualified immunity.

Sciotto Ex Rel. Sciotto v. Marple Newtown School District

81 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1999

Qualified Immunity Defendants James Smith and Stu Nathans claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs’ suit. The defendants have met their burden of pleading a qualified immunity defense, Gomez v. … a right for qualified immunity purposes.

Villot v. Varner

465 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2006

The “clearly established Federal law” which governs ineffective- assistance of counsel claims is the two-pronged standard set forth in Strickland v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 363 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (stating that the “Strickland test qualifies as ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court’ ”).

SANDERS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 22, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary acts from civil liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court need not assess the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Ely.

Commonwealth v. Packer

568 Pa. 481 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 31, 2002

This interpretation is contrary to the well-established cannon of construction that courts should generally apply qualifying words or phrases to the words immediately preceding them. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903; Midboe v. … Qualifying words “do not extend to or include other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent or meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of

ARREY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 10, 2025

“An official sued under § 1983 for an alleged constitutional violation is entitled to qualified immunity unless [the official] (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when he acted.” … So, Zebley is entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest the Arrey “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers

Pitts v. United States

228 F. Supp. 3d 412 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 6, 2017

Jones, 225 F.3d 468, 470 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 41(e) does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity.”); Pena v. … established Fourth Amendment rights”); Crawford v.

DOWNS v. BOROUGH OF JENKINTOWN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 10, 2020

“The test for qualified immunity is objective.” Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142 n.15 (3d Cir. 2001). … Litig., 49 F.3d 945, 961 (3d Cir. 1995) (“[I]f the law was established clearly, the official still may obtain qualified immunity if he claims ‘extraordinary circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have

Guthrie v. Wetzel

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 12, 2022

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that government officials performing “discretionary functions,” are shielded from suit if their conduct did not violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right … if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

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.

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.

EVANS

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · May 5, 2026

right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right.”

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.”).

NEWBERG v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2025

Qualified Immunity Does Not Preclude Liability Because Plaintiff’s Rights Were Well-Established: The application of qualified immunity is inapplicable because … Qualified immunity does not preclude liability if the “official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Id. at 232.

RAYNER v. THE COUNTY OF CHESTER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2025

Sept. 1, 2020) (“Because a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established in 2008—and is still not clearly established for that matter—the Court grants qualified … “If a court concludes that an officer's conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity.” Curley, 298 F.3d at 277.