-
845 F.3d 580 Fifth Circuit November 9, 2016 No. 15-40836Cited by 167 Unpublished
Ceballos 2 case law had clearly established various principles of First Amendment retaliation law. 3 Importantly, the panel in Cutler was itself deciding a qualified immunity question. 4 Specifically, the Cutler panel asked what
or to show that the right was clearly established at the time Anderson spoke.
Our discussion of that rule had no bearing on deciding Valdez’s qualified-immunity claim.
-
408 F. App'x 846 Fifth Circuit January 19, 2011 No. 09-11044Cited by 7 Unpublished
The qualified immunity defense has two prongs: whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff; and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Manis v.
If the defendant’s actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, the court then asks whether qualified immunity is still appropriate because the defendant’s actions were “objectively reasonable” in light of “law which
To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Brown v.
-
550 F. App'x 181 Fifth Circuit December 19, 2013 No. 13-30075Cited by 6 Unpublished
retaliation was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law.
the light of that then clearly-established law?
[conduct] in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct.”
-
379 F. App'x 377 Fifth Circuit May 25, 2010 No. 09-30753Cited by 3 Unpublished
As above, we review both determinations de novo. 9 We turn first to the grant of qualified immunity.
“Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.
Thus, a public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff demonstrates (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.” 10 Once
-
Fifth Circuit October 30, 2002 No. 02-30254Not cited Unpublished
First, if the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 550.
Second, even if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the official is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct was objectively reasonable. Id.
A review of the record reveals that Royster did not allege that the defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. See id.
-
265 F. App'x 232 Fifth Circuit February 7, 2008 No. 07-40284Cited by 10 Unpublished
immunity as a matter of law, we must examine (1) whether Valigura has alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether appellants’ conduct was objectively reasonable given the clearly established law at the time of the
However, the district court did not analyze whether appellants’ violated clearly established law.
As we have held, “officials enjoy qualified immunity to the *236 extent that their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.” 12 For a right to be clearly established “for purposes of qualified
-
539 F. App'x 456 Fifth Circuit August 28, 2013 No. 12-30527Cited by 4 Unpublished
’s conduct violated the plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights, and (2) whether the government official’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. 7 Once a defendant pleads qualified
The “clearly established” standard “does not mean that officials’ conduct is protected by qualified immunity unless ‘the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.’ ” 11 But neither does an official lose qualified
immunity “merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.” 12 In other words, the fact that the abstract right to be free from excessive force is clearly established does not categorically negate qualified
-
695 F. App'x 88 Fifth Circuit August 15, 2017 No. 15-50096 Summary CalendarCited by 7 Unpublished
The district court determined that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Hathaway v.
To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, Cobarobio must plead facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct
-
557 F. App'x 341 Fifth Circuit February 27, 2014 No. 12-31229Cited by 8 Unpublished
The district judge also rejected defendants’ qualified immunity argument, stating that “[i]t is clearly established under Supreme Court precedent both that Rodrigue had a federal right to medical care and that Defendants could not
Legal Standard State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
Appellants contend that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity because the judge conducted her inquiry into clearly established law “at too general a level.”
-
Fifth Circuit November 20, 2019 No. 18-40568Not cited Unpublished
clearly established law at the time of the incident.”
In an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, jurisdiction extends only to “the purely legal question whether a given course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law,” not
for qualified immunity purposes.
-
Fifth Circuit June 8, 2000 No. 98-21047Not cited Unpublished
Since the scope of qualified immunity depends upon public officials’ violating clearly established legal rights, i.e. those rights which are plainly 2 known, and no such plain law prohibited the media’s attendance on searches
clearly established then.
Because the constitutionality of the search in this case was not clearly established, the DEA officer is entitled to qualified immunity. The factors on which Dr.
-
639 F. App'x 278 Fifth Circuit May 6, 2016 No. 15-40358Cited by 5 Unpublished
A public official will be granted qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct
.” 3 The Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs’ warrantless entry claims.
because the law was not clearly established at the time of the officer's conduct”). 4 .
-
Fifth Circuit October 14, 2019 No. 18-31101Not cited Unpublished
Qualified immunity protects government officials against individual liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
conduct violated clearly established law.”
LaVergne has not shown that the prison officials’ “mail block” violated clearly established law. Therefore, the district court was correct to enter summary judgment in favor of the officers on the basis of qualified immunity.
-
98 F. App'x 976 Fifth Circuit May 10, 2004 No. 03-20541Cited by 1 Unpublished
To the extent these Appellees functioned as administrators rather than as officers of the court, they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Buckley v.
Because Appellants failed to allege specific violations of any clearly established constitutional rights, they failed to overcome Appellees’ qualified immunity. See Nunez v.
Simms, 341 F.3d 385, 387 (5th Cir.2003) (“The plaintiffs showing of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right is a ‘prerequisite’ to overcoming the qualified immunity defense.”) (citing Martinez v. Tex.
-
546 F. App'x 466 Fifth Circuit October 31, 2013 No. 12-11171Cited by 7 Unpublished
The court held that Petrie had submitted evidence to create a fact issue on the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and qualified immunity was therefore denied. Salame appeals.
Whether Salame’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.
The second step in the qualified immunity analysis is to decide whether the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the incident.
-
Fifth Circuit January 20, 2014 No. 13-30075Not cited Unpublished
retaliation was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law.
Qualified immunity promotes the necessary, effective, and efficient performance of governmental duties, Harlow v.
[conduct] in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct.@ Brumfield, 551 F.3d at 326 . 1.
-
738 F.3d 651 Fifth Circuit October 7, 2013 No. 12-40695Cited by 57 Unpublished
State actors sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 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
conduct is clearly established.”
As this court has noted, an official: does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract.
-
105 F. App'x 549 Fifth Circuit July 16, 2004 No. 03-60902Cited by 7 Unpublished
. § 1983 complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Officer Kallas argues that there was no evidence that he violated any clearly established constitutional rights of Nicole Brown and that even if his tackling of Brown was unconstitutional, there was no caselaw indicating as much at
Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir.2003).
-
567 F. App'x 214 Fifth Circuit May 6, 2014 No. 13-50599Cited by 8 Unpublished
The court next addressed the second part of the qualified immunity inquiry: whether the right violated was clearly established.
Qualified immunity shields a government official from Section 1983 liability if the official’s acts were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the official’s conduct. Atteberry v. Nocona Gen.
If both inquiries are answered in the affirmative, the official’s alleged conduct “violated a clearly established constitutional right” and the official is not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. In Ingraham v.
-
312 F. App'x 595 Fifth Circuit February 25, 2009 No. 08-60127Cited by 1 Unpublished
The district court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Id.
Because Pettiford asserted qualified immunity, the first question that must be considered is whether his conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.
To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the defendant’s rights. Johnson v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.