Case law

Scott Lee Rudlaff v. Brandon Gillispie

791 F.3d 638 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 1, 2015

Remember that qualified immunity (as we’ve been reminded again and again) is an “exacting standard” that gives officers lots of leeway, requiring their conduct to violate clearly established law to defeat the defense. … Because the officers acted constitutionally — and because even if they didn’t, by all accounts they didn’t clearly act unconstitutionally — they are protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.

Ozga v. Elliot

150 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 21, 2015

That is because a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “(1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively … Ozga had no clearly established right not to be temporarily detained as he was in the police car, and it follows that none of the defendants acted objectively unreasonably.

Hansen v. Town of Smithtown

342 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 24, 2018

City of New York , 45 F.3d 653 , 663 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that under qualified immunity, "a government official may claim immunity from suit only when in light of clearly established law and the information the official … The Supreme Court has explained that "officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was 'clearly established

Anthony v. Baker

808 F. Supp. 1523 · District Court, D. Colorado · Dec 10, 1992

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless that official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Harlow v. … Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct. Id.

Williams v. Schismenos

258 F. Supp. 3d 842 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 2017

Qualified Immunity Analysis The defendant officers maintain that qualified immunity protects them from liability for all federal claims asserted against them in their individual capacities. … The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary actions from civil damages liability if their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Acklin v. City of Inkster

93 F. Supp. 3d 778 · District Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 20, 2015

Specifically, the Defendants contend they should be entitled to qualified immunity because they contend they did not violate any statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established and of which a reasonable person … As discussed, Acklin’s Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force while handcuffed is “clearly established;” thus, Plaintiff meets that prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 .

Clark v. Evans

840 F.2d 876 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 1988

Since the law on this point was not clearly established at the time Sharp was shot, defendants Coleman and New-some can properly claim a defense of qualified immunity as against the disabling force theory of liability. … Since there is no clearly-established law regarding whether an insane person can be shot during an escape attempt, defendants can appropriately raise a qualified immunity defense. *883 As for the theory that Sharp’s aetion

Suboh v. District Attorney's Office

298 F.3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Aug 1, 2002

The district court then concluded that Murphy was not protected by qualified immunity because Suboh's claim "lies at the core" of a clearly established right to familial integrity, id. at 140, and that, as the case was … not clearly established at the time.

Baptiste v. MacDonald, et al.

2017 DNH 140 · District Court, D. New Hampshire · Jul 17, 2017

Baptiste’s Objection Based on the facts alleged in the complaint and the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no case that established … More importantly, in the context of qualified immunity from liability for an alleged constitutional violation, corrections officers are protected unless they violated an inmate’s clearly established 2 Baptiste mistakenly

Michaels v. State of NJ

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 6, 2000

rights were not clearly established at the time of the investigation such that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have known that they were violating her rights. … The defendants filed motions for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Bowen Ex Rel. Estate of Bowen v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison

826 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2016

Finally, the three defendant officials maintained that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct was not in violation of clearly established … and Officer Davis are “not entitled to qualified immunity by showing that the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of [the]

Shepard v. Irving

204 F. Supp. 2d 902 · District Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 5, 2002

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in Section 1983 actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … a clearly established right of which Defendants should have known.

Baillargeon v. Drug Enforcement Administration

707 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, D. Rhode Island · Apr 12, 2010

Ashcraft’s Objection In her objection, Ashcraft disputes Judge Almond’s conclusion as to the ‘clearly-established right’ prong of the qualified immunity test. … The Court explained: ‘Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that

Connelly v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

484 F.3d 343 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 2007

in light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident. … Conversely, Connelly, in her response to Fant’s motion, pointed to law and facts tending to establish her claim that Fant’s decision to terminate her was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, carrying

Dang v. Ehredt

95 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the officer possessed. 12 The standard is one of objective legal reasonableness, that is, whether the officer acted reasonably under settled law under the … Dang’s assertion that the issue of qualified immunity merges with the issue of probable cause, so that a finding that an officer lacked probable cause to arrest is dispositive of the issue of qualified immunity. 12 Anderson

Redd v. City of Enterprise

140 F.3d 1378 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 1998

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a section 1983 damages action if his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Thornton 3 No appeal is taken from this holding. v. … It is clearly established that an arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. See Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572, 579 (11th Cir.1990).

Barbara Bays v. Montmorency Cty., Mich.

874 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 20, 2017

Because a triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem, we affirm the district court’s qualified- … In a qualified-immunity case, we ask two questions: Did the officer violate the injured party’s constitutional rights? If so, was the right clearly established at the time? Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).

MCCRIMMON v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because settled law does not clearly establish that four instances of the opening of legal mail over a twenty-one-month period amounts to a pattern or practice … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Beverly Spencer v. Sheriff Jonathan Benison

5 F.4th 1222 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2021

It found that Benison was not entitled to qualified immunity on Spencer’s individual capacity claims because he “failed to establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” when he ordered Spencer … 18-14397 Date Filed: 07/16/2021 Page: 10 of 21 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established