Case law

C.B. v. Sonora School District

691 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2010

Qualified Immunity. Defendants move to dismiss the Eighth Cause' of Action on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under Section 1983. … Qualified immunity serves to shield 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

Wheeler v. Marengo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Appx. 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The law in this circuit 6 is clearly established that ‘a prison official acts with deliberate indifference when he 7 ignores the instructions of the prisoner’s treating physician … Defendants’ Entitlement to Qualified Immunity 8 The Supreme Court has set forth a two-part analysis for resolving government 9 officials’ qualified immunity claims. See Saucier v.

Baker v. Clearwater County

District Court, D. Idaho · Jan 3, 2022

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, unless the officer’s conduct 1) violated a constitutional right, and 2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the … Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

Maestas v. State of Colorado

351 F.3d 1001 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Nov 26, 2003

was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that [his] conduct violated that right.” … Maestas possesses a clearly established right to be free of such harassment. Sh.A. ex rel. J.A. v. Tucumcari Mun.

Merriweather v. Zamora

569 F.3d 307 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 24, 2009

The defendants argue that the district court improperly denied qualified immunity because they violated no clearly established constitutional right of Merriweather’s and their actions, if not a reasonable application of the … The final prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to consider whether the defendants acted objectively unreasonably “in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”

Washington v. Smith

District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Nov 8, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Governmental officers sued in their individual capacity are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established … Under the law of qualified immunity, a governmental officer may commit a constitutional violation but nevertheless be immune from suit if it was not “clearly established,” at the time that he acted, that he was

Waldon v. Borough of Upper Darby

77 F. Supp. 2d 655 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 1999

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of Plaintiffs, of which a reasonable officer would … A qualified immunity claim is ordinarily decided by first determining whether a violation of a constitutional or statutory right is alleged, and then next determining whether that right was clearly established and would have

Binay v. Bettendorf

601 F.3d 640 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 20, 2010

“Once the qualified immunity defense is raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.” Silberstein v. … Clearly Established Constitutional Right After determining that Plaintiffs have raised sufficient facts to support a Fourth Amendment violation, we next ask “whether the right was clearly established . . . in light

Latits v. Phillips

298 Mich. App. 109 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2012

Therefore, the Court concluded that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity under 42 USC 1983 because it was not clearly established that her actions violated the Constitution. Brosseau, 543 US at 201 . … Of course, unlike Brosseau , the case at bar does not involve a claim under § 1983 or issues of qualified immunity. But Brosseau does provide guidance on two points.

Williams v. Miniard

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 27, 2023

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the rights to be free from unduly tight restraints and from gratuitous violence when already restrained is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. … Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”); Kostrzewa v.

Richard Frenchman v. Herbert Saloum

236 F. App'x 235 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · May 31, 2007

The district court based its summary judgment decision on qualified immunity. Upon de novo review, we affirm. See K.D. v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); Logan v.

Rosalina Calonge v. City of San Jose

104 F.4th 39 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

We also conclude that the relevant law was clearly established at the time, so Officer Carboni is not entitled to qualified immunity. … CITY OF SAN JOSE immunity at the summary judgment stage because there were genuine disputes of material fact. She also argued that qualified immunity was inappropriate because the relevant law was clearly established.

McGrath v. Gillis

44 F.3d 567 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … . *570 In order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege a cognizable violation of a constitutional right clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Jones v. Fountain

121 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, E.D. Texas · Jul 7, 2000

The court will now proceed to the qualified immunity discussion. IV. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY In his third motion for summary judgment, defendant argues Jones’ claims are barred by qualified immunity. … In assessing a qualified immunity claim the district court must determine “whether (1) the plaintiffs have asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established

Heaney v. Roberts

147 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, E.D. Louisiana · Dec 2, 2015

Roberts’ contention - with respect to qualified immunity is that his actions were objectively reasonable, and that on September 18, 2013, the law was not clearly established such that the actions he took constituted a First … The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide whether a plaintiffs allegation, if true, establishes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Wyatt v.

Stephen Hopkins v. Anthony Nichols

37 F.4th 1110 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 16, 2022

These errors, perhaps understandably, led the district court not to discuss the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity as it pertained to the seizure of Mrs. Hopkins. … Hopkins may have amounted to a clearly established constitutional violation. For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs.

Elizabeth Roque-Rodriguez v. Hon. Jose Lema Moya

926 F.2d 103 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 1991

This is clearly an error of law, since for purposes of the doctrine of qualified immunity, th[e] court had to determine whether on [sic] 1985, plaintiff had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to be promoted … and that the failure to promote her violated this clearly established right.

Young v. City of Providence

396 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Nov 2, 2005

Camilo-Robles, 151 F.3d at 6 . 5 More specifically, “the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is satisfied when (1) the subordinate’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, and … The Second Prong: Clearly Established Law The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis “deals with fair warning; it asks whether the law was clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.”

Garvey v. Vermilion

2012 Ohio 1258 · Ohio Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2012

‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the  5 allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.’” … be determined before trial whether the defendant did acts that violate clearly established rights.”

Morris v. ZEFFERI

601 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 13, 2010

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a [42 U.S.C. §] 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of … To defeat Zefferi’s qualified immunity claim, Morris must show Zefferi potentially violated Morris’s clearly established constitutional right as a pretrial detainee to be free from being transported for ninety minutes in