Case law

Schaefer v. Whitted

121 F. Supp. 3d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 5, 2015

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Brumfield v. … However, to surmount qualified immunity, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the Second Amendment right Officer Whitted is alleged to have violated is “clearly established” in the more “particularized sense,” such that

Niles v. Town of Wakefield

172 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 24, 2016

Qualified Immunity ■ The First Circuit recently described the contours of the qualified immunity defense in detail as follows: The rules for granting qualified immunity are well established, “The doctrine of qualified immunity … ” subject to qualified immunity).

Moore v. Hartman

644 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

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 … federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools

41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 · District Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 29, 2014

(“Robles has successfully established the violation of a clearly established right and therefore qualified immunity is not appropriate. … Clearly Established Rights in the Qualifíed Immunity Analysis.

Burgess v. Fischer

890 F. Supp. 2d 845 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 2012

Qualified immunity protects state officials so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Dickerson v. … Qualified immunity includes a two-step analysis: (1) considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated; and (2) whether that right was clearly established

Loria v. Gorman

306 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Sep 26, 2002

However, if we decide otherwise, we proceed to “ask whether the right was clearly established” at the time it was allegedly infringed. Id. … Appellants’ Claims of Qualified Immunity A. Qualified Immunity from Claims Arising out of the April 10, 1998 Arrest of Loria for OGA 1.

Onnette v. Reed

832 S.W.2d 450 · Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · Jun 25, 1992

Regarding appellant’s section 1983 claim, appellees argue that “[the TDCJ employees] are entitled to qualified immunity.” Prison officials and officers may rely on qualified immunity in section 1983 actions. … To meet this burden, the plaintiff must estab *453 lish that the defendant’s conduct “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Brown v.

Jill S. N. Schaffer v. Bryan Beringer

842 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Nov 21, 2016

-4-  Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a … Thus, the qualified immunity analysis is divided into two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time

Crouse v. South Lebanon Township

668 F. Supp. 2d 664 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 22, 2009

to qualified immunity. … Police officers enjoy qualified immunity unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wright, 409 F.3d at 599-600.

Joseph E. Birrell v. Robert Brown, Director, Michigan Dept. Of Corrections

867 F.2d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 13, 1989

Upon reference, the magistrate reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations and reported in a twenty page recommendation that the defendants could not establish qualified immunity to insulate themselves under the circumstances. … A prison official’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity should be denied only when he acts intentionally, or when his alleged actions violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would

Tunnell v. Crosby

657 F. Supp. 2d 1263 · District Court, N.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2009

This is so because the motions to dismiss plainly must be granted anyway based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. … The defendants thus have qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Sheffield v. Pieroway

361 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Resil asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which plaintiff opposes. … Qualified Immunity Pieroway contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Rodriguez-Oquendo v. Toledo-Davila

39 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 23, 1999

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense shielding public officials from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate any clearly—established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, we find that Defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Michael Seals-Brown v. Jeffrey Llopis

678 F. App'x 533 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Feb 23, 2017

qualified immunity related to their enforcement of those conditions. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

North

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 17, 2025

App’x 490, 493 (9th 4 Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding defendants were entitled to 5 qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that depriving prisoner of a 6 mattress or bed … Mandeville, 706 F.3d 7 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding defendants entitled to qualified immunity because it 8 was not clearly established that mattress deprivation for seven days violated Eighth 9 Amendment

McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial Dist

79 F.4th 411 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 16, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability in their individual capacity so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis to address first.38 Our inquiry starts and ends with the clearly established prong, whether Chief Judge Morrison violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Sherin v. Department of Human Resources

229 Ga. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · Nov 4, 1997

(a) “Government officials performing discretionary functions are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from imposition of personal liability pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … In this factual setting, it cannot be said that Reid’s failure to tell the Sherins about the masturbation was objectively unreasonable so as to deprive her of qualified immunity.

Lunini v. Grayeb

395 F.3d 761 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

Appellants now appeal that ruling on the narrow question whether Lunini's equal protection rights were indeed "clearly established" for qualified immunity purposes at the time of the alleged incident. I. … The appellants' appeal now comes before this Court, presenting a single narrow legal issue: whether the district court erred in ruling that Lunini's equal protection rights were "clearly established" for qualified immunity

Griess v. Colorado

841 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Mar 15, 1988

The Supreme Court has indicated that when the issue with which we are concerned, i.e,, whether constitutional rights allegedly violated were “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity under Harlow v. … Because the test for qualified immunity turns on whether a right is clearly established, courts should ordinarily determine the existence and character of the underlying constitutional violation(s) before proceeding to the

Amore v. Novarro

610 F.3d 155 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The district court concluded that Novarro was not entitled to qualified immunity: Amore had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful arrest, and it would have been clear to a reasonable officer … Whether the “objectively reasonable” inquiry is framed as part of the “clearly established” inquiry, or apart from it, does not affect the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis here. 9 *163 III.