-
686 F. Supp. 620 N.D. Ohio May 18, 1988 No. C86-3969
Put simply, if a defendant did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.
If a defendant did violate a clearly established constitutional right, he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
The Supreme Court, in Creighton , further clarified the term "clearly established law” as it is used in the standard for qualified immunity.
-
E.D. Michigan September 30, 2024 No. 2:22-cv-12531Not cited
The R&R did not address this argument or line of cases because it did not reach the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
Likewise, it is important to reach and analyze the clearly-established prong of Roush’s qualified immunity defense.
The court recognized that its prior “reluctance to dismiss cases on qualified immunity might have more vitality in the clearly established context . . . because the clearly established inquiry may turn on case- specific details
-
S.D. Ohio October 5, 2021 No. 1:18-cv-00093Not cited
In other words, plaintiffs must articulate why the asserted constitutional rights count as “clearly established,” or else qualified immunity bars those claims.
once again waived the clearly-established prong of qualified immunity with respect to that claim.
Although McDougald waived the clearly- established law prong of qualified immunity with respect to this issue only once, rather than twice as with his other claims, once is enough.
-
329 F. Supp. 2d 905 E.D. Michigan July 26, 2004 No. 02-10160-BC
The defendant claims that he is entitled to a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the undisputed facts do not demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs clearly established Eighth Amendment rights.
The affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional
clearly established constitutional rights.
-
154 F. Supp. 2d 1069 E.D. Michigan July 24, 2001 No. CIV. 00-40183
A negative answer to this question would end the inquiry in favor of finding qualified immunity for the defendant; an affirmative answer would require the Court to address the second and final issue: whether the right was clearly established
If the Court were to decide that the right allegedly violated was not clearly established, the doctrine of qualified immunity would shield the defendant from suit.
The Court’s conclusion that the right was clearly established, conversely, would mean that qualified immunity is no obstacle to a continuation of the suit.
-
W.D. Michigan February 22, 2021 No. 1:19-cv-00257Not cited
The magistrate judge produced a Supplemental R&R, which recommended denying Griffith qualified immunity for violating a clearly established right,1 and therefore denying Griffith’s motion for summary judgment. (Suppl.
To get around qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that the right allegedly violated was so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would have understood that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.’”
In the qualified immunity context, however, simply stating that officers cannot maliciously and sadistically inflict harm over- generalizes the right that must be defined and clearly established. Cordell v.
-
815 F. Supp. 1066 W.D. Michigan February 23, 1993 No. 1:92-cr-00083
They argue that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations and also ask for reconsideration of their conspiracy claim.
Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages liability, provided their conduct “does not vio-' late clearly established statutory or constitutional
Although Murphy presents a compelling analysis for concluding that the right of a foster child to be free from unnecessary harm was clearly established during this period, nevertheless, qualified immunity must be provided to Skipski
-
197 F. Supp. 2d 931 W.D. Michigan March 30, 2001 No. 4:97-cv-00100
The Sixth Circuit determined that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning a prisoner’s retaliation claim was not “clearly established” for purposes of the qualified immunity defense prior to the
immunity is raised in a First Amendment retaliation claim involving facts that occurred prior to the date Thaddeus-X was decided, the defendants should be entitled to dismissal on the qualified immunity defense because the law
was not clearly established.
-
W.D. Michigan November 19, 2019 No. 1:19-cv-00415Not cited
The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks a property or liberty interest in acceptance of his written certifications, or at least such an interest was not clearly established. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as Plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty or property interest in acceptance of his written certifications.
Defendants “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 at the time.”
-
E.D. Michigan October 6, 2021 No. 2:20-cv-13283Not cited
plaintiff, not the defendant, has the burden to demonstrate clearly established law once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, and (b) the district court was required to decide whether the rights at issue in this case are
established’ for purposes of qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage of litigation.”
Second, the Opinion did not fail to rule on Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity: the Opinion denied it, finding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
-
803 F. Supp. 103 S.D. Ohio March 16, 1992 Nos. C-1-88-711, C-1-89-309
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Prison officials performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity if their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional law of which a reasonable prison official would have known.
Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity argument in a motion for summary judgement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test: “First, the allegations must state a claim of violation of clearly established law.
Defendants are protected by qualified immunity because the standard of mutually enforcing conditions was not clearly established in the Sixth Circuit, in a particularized sense, during plaintiff’s incarceration at LCI.
-
W.D. Michigan May 28, 2020 No. 1:19-cv-00222Not cited
The qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to decide whether the facts as alleged or shown make out a constitutional violation and whether the right that was allegedly violated was a clearly established right at the time of
If the court can conclude that either no constitutional violation occurred or that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity is warranted.
Discussion Defendant seeks summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant Prevette violated any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
E.D. Michigan September 2, 2022 No. 2:20-cv-12709Not cited
Analysis Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that would have been known to
On the other hand, the Crawford court held that the general preference to not grant motions to dismiss on qualified immunity “might have more vitality in the clearly established context” where “the application of qualified immunity
Indeed, the court stated, “[d]ismissing for qualified immunity on [the clearly established prong] is sometimes difficult because the . . . inquiry may turn on case-specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.”
-
W.D. Michigan February 28, 2022 No. 2:20-cv-00153Not cited
Defendants argue that this recent modification of the legal standard applied to deliberate indifference claims entitles them to qualified immunity.
Defendants misunderstand the clearly established standard for qualified immunity.
The Sixth Circuit’s discussion of qualified immunity and clearly established right was not affected by the modified subjective component standard.
-
E.D. Michigan February 11, 2025 No. 2:22-cv-13096Not cited
Objection: Qualified Immunity - Clearly Established Law Defendant Steece moved for summary judgment on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.
The same inference is not relevant to the issue of whether the law was clearly established at the time the official acted.
The “clearly established” prong is a high standard, requiring a plaintiff to produce, with reasonable particularity, published cases that constitute binding authority because “qualified immunity protects government officials from
-
E.D. Michigan September 26, 2022 No. 2:17-cv-11427Not cited
Clearly established As for the second qualified immunity prong, it is clearly established that a prison may not restrict a prisoner’s First Amendment rights unless it “prove[s] the necessity of any restrictions it imposes.”
Qualified immunity prong two: clearly established As for the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, the Court must find “whether the state of the law at the time of an incident provided fair warning to the defendants
Clearly established As for the second qualified immunity prong, it is clearly established that “[i]ncarceration in a penal institution does not extinguish the protections on the free exercise of religion afforded by the First Amendment
-
E.D. Michigan January 4, 2024 No. 2:22-cv-11422Not cited
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
violation occurred; and 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.
They further assert that Harris cannot meet the second part of the qualified immunity test (ie, the clearly-established prong).
-
W.D. Kentucky May 28, 2024 No. 5:22-cv-00163Not cited
Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil-damages liability for violations of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.
The Sixth Circuit recently explained the second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis as follows: [A] right is considered clearly established when existing precedent has placed the question “beyond debate” and “any reasonable
Lombard, the Eighth Circuit held that even where prison officials violate a clearly established right, “they may still be entitled to qualified immunity if the officials reasonably could have believed that their conduct did not
-
E.D. Michigan September 30, 2025 No. 2:24-cv-12003Not cited
Yet in his response to Fair’s motion to dismiss, Vinson all but failed to address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity defense.
(Compare ECF No. 21, PageID.112 (“Qualified immunity does not shield Defendants because the right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident.
App’x at 461 (granting qualified immunity under clearly established prong where plaintiff’s actions “f[e]ll somewhere in the middle” between active and passive resistance).
-
W.D. Michigan January 23, 2024 No. 1:19-cv-01016Not cited
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that further factual development is necessary to evaluate the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.
They contend that (1) whether the clearly established prong is met is purely a legal issue; (2)further factual development is not necessary to decide the “obviousness” issue; and (3) further factual development is not necessary because
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.