It follows, and we have repeatedly held, that a state statute does not serve as "clearly established law" for purposes of qualified immunity.

The Lack of Clearly Established Law For qualified immunity to apply, it is sufficient that no clearly established law has held that "an officer acting under similar circumstances" violated an employee's due process rights.

And we conclude that, since Schwaller has not violated Tooly's clearly established rights, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

II “Qualified immunity protects officials from' liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

If McVeigh and Farina had a duty to intervene in those circumstances, that duty was not clearly established, and the defendants therefore enjoy qualified immunity on that claim.

Since, as we have already ruled, McVeigh did not violate clearly established law, Farina is entitled to qualified immunity as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is reversed. .

Officers Miller and Clarke contend that because their actions did not violate “clearly established law,” the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity at this juncture.

Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004), and because the undisputed facts do not support a violation of law that was clearly established at the time of Lennox’s arrest, Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

to qualified immunity at this juncture.

Zorn at bar only considered the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis in determining that Sergeant Zorn is entitled to qualified immunity, we review it first. A.

Linton contends “that Amnesty America clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes.” Appellant Br. at 30 n.8.

Town of West Hartford clearly established a right for qualified immunity purposes, consistent with our holding in Edrei v.

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts ask whether the facts shown “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant

established in the circumstances presented for purposes of deciding qualified immunity.

These assertions 12 were timely and advanced a consistent theory of qualified immunity, namely, 13 that there was no clearly established law on the circumstances of the case. 14 Accordingly, Bonacchi adequately preserved his qualified

Qualified Immunity 4 Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless “the 5 official violated a statutory or constitutional right” that “was clearly established 6 at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Even if a right is clearly established, qualified immunity may nonetheless 14 apply if “it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct at 15 issue was lawful.” Gonzalez v.

"Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Taravella v.

However, Officer Gionfriddo is entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that, given the undisputed facts, his conduct complied with this clearly established law.

Torreso , 764 F.3d 217 , 237 (2d Cir. 2014) ("An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury."

But because neither of these rights was clearly established before today, Fredenburgh is entitled to qualified immunity for any responsibility she may have had for Hurd’s prolonged detention.

Clearly Established Law “Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

The officials were entitled to qualified immunity, however, because the specific procedural protections to which we found Francis entitled were not clearly established before that decision. Id. at 148–49.

Bachmann appealed from the denial of qualified immunity arguing that the scope of supervisory liability for deliberate- indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment is not clearly established after Ashcroft v.

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

We review the denial of qualified immunity de novo. Vega, 963 F.3d at 272 . II Bachmann does not dispute that prison inmates have a clearly established constitutional right to protection from sexual abuse. See Boddie v.

Geraci, Judge) dismissing his complaint on the grounds that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bangs’s rights in this context were not clearly established.

I “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects ‘government officials performing discretionary functions’ from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

For purposes of qualified immunity, “[w]hether the law was sufficiently clearly established is . . . an issue of law that we consider de novo.” Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F.3d 351, 366 (2d Cir. 2018).

Free Exercise Claims 10 “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate 11 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 12 would have known.” White v.

While qualified immunity “does not require 14 a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established, existing precedent must 15 have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

We may “grant qualified immunity on 2 the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, 3 without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right 4 exists at all.”

Because this requirement was established by sufficiently persuasive 8 authority, it was “clearly established” for purposes of a qualified immunity 9 defense by New York state police officers at the time of the search at issue in

However, that is not the only way in 14 which a right may be “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes.

(“[Q]ualified immunity clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Qualified immunity bars a plaintiff's claim unless (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Francis v.

was clearly established. 7 1.

Instead, the protesters want this Court to hold, regardless of the objective reasonableness of the Officers' actions, that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity once we determine they violated a clearly established right

Qualified immunity protects officers from suit so long as "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.

In sum, in the absence of clearly established law prohibiting the challenged detentions in the circumstances presented, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from § 1983 claims for money damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Rather, at the second step inquiry, “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, ... an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the

City of Hartford, 723 F.3d at 388-89 (identifying two-inquiry analysis and observing that qualified immunity may not attach where right is clearly established in particular context); Walczyk v.

Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 1985), and we have held that this right was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes by no later than 1985, Williams v. Greifinger, 97 F.3d 699, 703-04 (2d Cir. 1996).

Upon review, we conclude that the magistrate judge and the district court correctly concluded that Paul disputed material issues of fact concerning the merits of his claim and that the right at issue was clearly established, and we

because an inmate’s right to be afforded an opportunity to exercise was clearly established as of the events in question, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity- We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments

violated clearly established law.

so as to defeat a qualified immunity defense.

ʺThe issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out [a] violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was clearly established; and (3) even if the right was clearly established

The court explained that the policy "may violate clearly established First Amendment case law and the RFRA statute," and, therefore, decided that "it is plausible—at this stage—that qualified immunity would not shield Defendants

Because it was clearly established at the time that substantially burdening prisoners' religious exercise without justification violates RFRA, the wardens are not entitled to qualified immunity. I.

Whether the Right was "Clearly Established" Having determined that the plaintiffs pled a RFRA violation, we must address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether "the right [at issue] was clearly established

” and (2) “whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the "violation.”

For purposes of deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, courts should not define “clearly established law at a high level of generality.”

Defendants’ primary challenge to the denial of qualified immunity on this claim is rooted in the “clearly established” prong.

immunity “is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established,’” Mullenix v.

Qualified immunity would be “no immunity at all if ‘clearly established’ law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” City & Cnty. of San Francisco v.

Via, 821 3 F.2d 913 , 923–24 (2d Cir. 1987)). 4 We have repeatedly stated that our 2010 decision in Tracy clearly established 5 this principle for purposes of qualified immunity.