-
880 F. Supp. 319 E.D. Pennsylvania December 5, 1994 No. 2:93-cv-04250
not clearly established); Landstrom, 892 F.2d. at 676 (defendants entitled to qualified immunity *330 because plaintiffs cite no cases indicating what clearly established rights have been violated); Hidahl v.
immunity because no clearly established rights existed); Doe v.
established, and is not entitled to qualified immunity).
-
900 F. Supp. 2d 499 M.D. Pennsylvania October 16, 2012 No. 1:10-CV-02382
Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Adamo] is a deprivation of Due Process. 15.
Defendant Dillon is entitled to Qualified Immunity because it is not clearly established that failing to hold a pre-ejection hearing [for Gill] is a deprivation of due process. 23.
The privilege of qualified immunity, however, can be overcome when state officials violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
-
D. New Jersey September 2, 2026 No. 3:24-cv-09054Not cited
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. (Motion at 7–12.)
Defendants do not argue under the first qualified immunity prong 6 Defendants make no argument for qualified immunity specifically addressed to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and, as stated, expressly concede a clearly established
Defendants rely on the clearly established prong as the basis for their assertion of qualified immunity.
-
W.D. Pennsylvania July 15, 2021 No. 3:10-cv-00264Not cited
established and denying qualified immunity.
Further, the Motion addresses the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis as to Mack’s RFRA claim, whether the right was clearly established.
When considering qualified immunity, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.”
-
216 F. Supp. 3d 590 W.D. Pennsylvania October 25, 2016 No. 15-1183
Our Court of Appeals’ decisions in Ray and Vargas do not address a clearly established right in this context. In Ray, our Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s finding of qualified immunity for officers who entered Mr.
Citizens have a clearly established right to be free from excessive force while restrained. 57 In light of this clearly established right, district courts tend to deny qualified immunity in cases where the reasonableness of the force
Conclusion We are not aware of a clearly established right for a citizen not to be restrained while suffering a grand mal seizure. We apply qualified immunity to Mr. Guthrie’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim.
-
E.D. Pennsylvania April 6, 2020 No. 2:19-cv-02847Not cited
established,” and that as a result, qualified immunity is available as a defense.
If the right was not clearly established, then the Detective Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and this theory must be dismissed.
Judge Kearney reasoned that if the right was not clearly established in 2000 then, by definition, it was not clearly established in 1998, so the defendant officers in that case were entitled to qualified immunity.
-
608 F. Supp. 2d 629 E.D. Pennsylvania March 19, 2009 No. 08-5366
Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity can protect police officers sued in their individual capacities from liability under § 1983, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment if their conduct does not violate clearly established
“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.” Mitchell v.
Gale has stated a claim that the officers unreasonably violated clearly established laws, therefore, the motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied without prejudice to raise at a later stage in the litigation. B.
-
213 F. Supp. 2d 496 E.D. Pennsylvania July 26, 2002 No. 2:02-cv-00003
. § 1983 by Mayor Goldsmith Public officials have the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as a shield from liability for their official actions unless those actions violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
When analyzing a qualified immunity claim, a court must first identify the constitutional or statutory right at stake and then determine if that right was clearly established at the time the defendants violated those rights.
Because plaintiff pled a valid constitutional right he has satisfied the first prong of the qualified immunity inquiry. It must next be determined if that right was “clearly established.”
-
306 F. Supp. 3d 748 E.D. Pennsylvania March 12, 2018 No. 16–4669Not cited
Jan. 26, 2018), a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity even if there is a factual dispute as to whether his conduct violated constitutional rights, if the right asserted was not "clearly established."
Principles of Qualified Immunity For decades, the Supreme Court has held that "the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
"The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was 'clearly established' at the time of the violation." Id. at 1866 .
-
M.D. Pennsylvania March 7, 2022 No. 4:20-cv-00325Not cited
this stage.5 Specifically, Swanson asserts that the correct question for any qualified immunity analysis here is whether it was “clearly established that a correctional officer witnessing otherwise legal force against a pretrial
t]he qualified immunity inquiry contains two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.”11 To
immunity here is whether it was “clearly established that a correctional officer witnessing otherwise legal force against a pretrial detainee should intervene because the force 10 See Snyder v.
-
E.D. Pennsylvania August 6, 2021 No. 2:21-cv-01290Not cited
We resolve claims of qualified immunity using a two-step sequence: first, we must determine whether the facts “make out a violation of a constitutional right;” second, we must decide whether this right was “clearly established” at
Ct. 500, 503 (2019), we are obligated to follow precedent and find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Outlaw’s asserted right was not clearly established at the time of his investigation and prosecution
As we discussed, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on each, and we agree with Defendants that the City of Philadelphia cannot be liable for rights not clearly established.
-
354 F. Supp. 2d 563 E.D. Pennsylvania January 27, 2005 No. Civ.A.03-5014
The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “law enforcement officers acting within their professional capacity are generally immune from trial ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
need to be resolved before determining whether defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”
The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
-
815 F. Supp. 2d 810 M.D. Pennsylvania September 7, 2011 No. 1:07-cv-1573
to clearly established law.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that even where a defendant violates a clearly established right, he may still be entitled to qualified immunity in limited circumstances. Id.; see also Friedman v.
Although the law in this matter was clearly established and showed that Defendant did not have probable cause to make an arrest, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant must be denied qualified immunity on this basis.
-
161 F. Supp. 3d 359 E.D. Pennsylvania February 18, 2016 No. 15-5223
“A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are ‘sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Sharp, 669 F.3d at 159 (quoting Saucier
Under these circumstances, the vio-lative nature of Defendant’s alleged conduct has not been clearly established, and so Defendant is necessarily entitled to qualified immunity. IV.
was clearly established.
-
709 F. Supp. 592 E.D. Pennsylvania March 15, 1989 No. 88-1465
Because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, defendants must show, without material factual dispute, that their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time they acted.
Gable, 823 F.2d 723, 733 (3d Cir.1987) (defendants not entitled to qualified immunity where law clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights).
Thus, in the case at bar, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity where there remains a factual issue whether they violated plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights to air their political views without suffering
-
D. New Jersey February 2, 2026 No. 2:23-cv-01034Not cited
* * * “Qualified immunity shields . . . state officials . . . unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a . . . right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged
[O]nce the defendant[] ha[s] started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly established” law actually is? The plaintiff.
If [t]he [plaintiff] does not come forward with sufficiently on-point indications5 that the relevant law is “clearly established,” then the defendant gets qualified immunity. Courney v. City of Englewood, 793 F.
-
586 F. Supp. 532 D. New Jersey May 2, 1984 No. 79-2783
Montgomery County, supra (law became clearly established and qualified immunity evaporated with controlling decision of court of appeals). 8 If even the exception to the objective standard is itself largely objective, then the
instance in which a determination concerning qualified immunity involves a jury issue would be rare indeed.
Montgomery County, 573 F.Supp. 604, 610 (D.Md.1983) (law re: strip searching of pretrial detainees was not clearly established prior to Fourth Circuit decision, was clearly established after that decision; qualified immunity from
-
M.D. Pennsylvania May 30, 2025 No. 4:23-cv-01315Not cited
Qualified immunity shields state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that (1) “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and (2) “the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged
conduct.”44 The Court has “discretion to decide which of the two prongs of qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.”45 “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged
Yost, 63 F.4th 211 , 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (noting that first step for “clearly established” qualified-immunity prong is to “define the right allegedly violated at the appropriate level of specificity”). 52 Fieni defines the right
-
E.D. Pennsylvania June 8, 2023 No. 2:22-cv-02416Not cited
That leaves the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law.
(ECF 36) at 20.17 Adopting the city’s analysis would import the “clearly established” inquiry from qualified immunity doctrine into the municipal liability standard.18 See Joanna C.
its caselaw suggests that municipal liability should remain untethered to the “clearly established” qualified immunity standard.
-
954 F. Supp. 1056 E.D. Pennsylvania January 29, 1997 No. 96-3578
Defendants further claim that Scheer has qualified immunity under § 1983 because he did not violate a clearly established constitutional right held by plaintiffs. i.
Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that even if Scheer was not absolutely immune, Scheer has qualified immunity.
‘clearly established at the time it was taken.’”
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.