"Qualified immunity shields [government] officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the

Accordingly, we address only the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test and need not decide whether Lehi City officials violated the right alleged by Doyle. 3 123 "A Government official's conduct violates clearly

Corp., 554 F.3d 1271, 1280 (10th Cir.2009) (holding that because "the free speech right [at issue] 'was not clearly established regarding Plaintiffs activities,' ... the individual defendants were similarly entitled to qualified immunity

Under qualified immunity, “government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

The Spiel-man court held that the section 1983 claims against Hildebrand were barred by qualified immunity because plaintiffs could not show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Thus, the section 1983 claims against Forsyth are barred by qualified immunity because Cline cannot show a violation of any clearly established constitutional or statutory right. B.

However, a plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of a constitutional or statutory right may overcome the defendant officials’ qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

Because the constitutional rights in question were not “clearly established” during the twenty-day period, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ civil rights action on the ground of qualified immunity.

Defendants argue that the Commissioner is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

“It is the plaintiffs burden to convince the court that the law was clearly established.” Hilliard v.

A clearly established right, for purposes of qualified immunity, is not simply the mere existence of a well-known constitutional right.

established at the time it was taken.”

When challenging an official’s actions, a plaintiff may not overcome qualified immunity merely by alleging an abstract violation of an established constitutional right.

Because it is an affirmative defense, the issue of qualified immunity arises after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case under § 1983. Harlow v.

Deputy Morgan's Qualified Immunity 112 The Pintars next argue that the district court erred in concluding that Deputy Morgan herself was entitled to qualified immunity.

"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity, two factors must be considered: whether "the facts ... alleged ... make out a violation of a constitutional right" and "whether the right at issue was clearly

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates by insulating government employees "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Howe's right to be free from unreasonable seizure sufficient to survive qualified immunity. {55 We now consider the second prong of the qualified immunity test: whether Mr.

Howe's right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct.

Under qualified immunity, "government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Concluding that those claims were not “based on a clearly established statutory or constitutional right,” the court determined that Coordinator and Manager were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment in their favor

[and] that this right was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." Clark v. Edmunds, 513 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 , 129 S.Ct. 808, 818 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (noting that courts are "permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first