Case law

Edward Ray, Jr. v. E. Lara

31 F.4th 692 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Apr 11, 2022

It has long been established that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damages suits under § 1983 for activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. … LARA that Ray does not qualify for the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g). 9 IV Because Ray has both accumulated three strikes and failed to establish a sufficient nexus between

Dudley v. Angel

209 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 25, 2000

Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. … The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the

Students for Life USA v. Waldrop

90 F. Supp. 3d 1265 · District Court, S.D. Alabama · Feb 4, 2015

Qualified Immunity. … Certainly Bloedom does not clearly establish for purposes of qualified immunity analysis the proposition for which the plaintiff contends.

Hill v. Walsh

884 F.3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Feb 27, 2018

Because the law on the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was not clearly established at the time of the incident, we uphold the district court's entry of judgment based on qualified immunity. … The district court also noted that even if the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment, they had a "strong case" that they were entitled to qualified immunity because "there is no clearly established Supreme

Batten v. Gomez

324 F.3d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 24, 2003

suit under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … We have reviewed this claim and agree with the district court that Shuster and Gomez are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because Shuster and Gomez violated no clearly established right held by Brittany.

Norfleet v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

796 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 1, 1992

Qualified immunity from liability for civil damages exists where the defendants’ actions do not violate “clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court, however, does not need to decide this question because it finds that the law in this area is not clearly established and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Richard E. Maul v. Dr. Evan Constan, Anthony Metzcus, and Richard Gore

928 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1991

The defendants clearly did not press a qualified immunity defense in any pretrial motions, at the pretrial conference, or at trial. … Aquino, 863 F.2d 1037 , 1041 n. 5 (1st Cir.1988), which says that a defendant “who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceedings

Cole v. Sharp

898 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, D. Kansas · Aug 11, 1995

The defendants have also raised qualified immunity as a defense. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Williams ex rel. Williams v. Papi

30 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2014

Qualified Immunity Defendant next argues that “an additional and fully sufficient basis exists to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim, namely qualified immunity.” (Doc. 10 at 12.) … It has likewise held that when a “complaint failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Kevin Holcomb v. Mark Lykens, Sean Smith, Joanne Pereria and John Gorczyk

337 F.3d 217 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jul 23, 2003

“In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not … In order to defeat the defendants’ qualified immunity defense, then, Holcomb must allege a deprivation of an actual constitutional right clearly established at the time of the events in issue.

Powers v. Northside Independent School District

143 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Oct 29, 2015

that Woods’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim against Woods must nevertheless be dismissed because Woods is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. The Court agrees.

Roe v. City of Milwaukee

26 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Nov 2, 1998

Unless the constitutionality of the defendants’ conduct was clearly established in 1997—when they allegedly committed these acts—the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Thompson v. City of Clio

765 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, M.D. Alabama · May 2, 1991

Qualified Immunity a. … were clearly established in April and May of 1990.

Ortiz v. Alvarez

341 F. Supp. 3d 1087 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2018

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Jeffers v. … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court first considers: (1) whether the defendant's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established."

H. John Putnam v. Diane Keller

332 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 18, 2003

summary judgment motion premised on qualified immunity. … is clearly established.

Cartwright Ex Rel. Estate of Cartwright v. City of Marine

336 F.3d 487 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 21, 2003

No. 02-1728 qualified immunity. … Then, the 295, 299 (6th cir. 1999) (noting that as long as “a defendant court must discern whether the right is so “clearly seeking qualified immunity [is] willing to concede to the facts established” that a “reasonable

Jones v. Lopez

262 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 31, 2001

Qualified Immunity Defendants raise for the first time in their Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment the defense of official or qualified immunity. … Here, defendants have raised qualified immunity as a defense but have not pleaded good faith or established they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority.

Gomez Candelaria v. Rivera Rodríguez

218 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, D. Puerto Rico · Feb 25, 2002

The general rule regarding qualified immunity is that government officials are immune from suit and liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory authority or constitutional rights, which a reasonable … Accordingly, they argue that Defendants are not immune from liability since their unconstitutional actions occurred when the law regarding patronage dismissals was “clearly established”.

Carvajal v. Dominguez

542 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2008

An appeal of an order denying qualified immunity is a well-established application of this doctrine: “A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to- the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer has qualified immunity. If yes, then the second step is whether the violated right was clearly established.

Harris v. Roderick

933 F. Supp. 977 · District Court, D. Idaho · May 28, 1996

Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officials from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Even if the Court cannot find as a matter of law that the shot was reasonable, Defendants assert, the Court can find that the law on excessive force was not clearly established and that Horiuchi has qualified immunity.