-
D. Montana March 29, 2021 No. 1:18-cv-00084Not cited
Judge Cavan also found that the County Defendants and State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Buckles’ § 1983 claim because Buckles did not meet his burden to demonstrate “an inmate’s [clearly established] constitutional
A court must examine two factors when considering a defense of qualified immunity: (1) whether the alleged facts demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right has been clearly established
However, as Judge Cavan pointed out, it is within the district court’s discretion whether to address the clearly established prong or the violation prong of the qualified immunity analysis first. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200.
-
852 F. Supp. 986 M.D. Florida April 6, 1994 No. 93-254-CIV-FtM-23
clearly established law.
The qualified immunity doctrine shields a public official exercising discretionary duties from civil liability unless his or her conduct is “unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Elder v.
Thus, if the applicable law was not clearly established, or if the law was clearly established and Defendant James did not violate that law in terminating Plaintiff, he is entitled to qualified immunity.
-
383 F. Supp. 3d 826 S.D. Indiana May 28, 2019 No. 1:17-cv-01698-JPH-MJD
The "difficult part" of the qualified-immunity test is "identifying the level of generality at which the constitutional right must be clearly established." Volkman v. Ryker , 736 F.3d 1084 , 1090 (7th Cir. 2013).
Because Officer *833 Blackwell relies on qualified immunity and the parties focus on whether his actions violated clearly established law, the Court exercises its discretion to begin with that prong of the qualified-immunity analysis
Todero and dropped his head on the curb in violation of clearly established law. Dkt. 131 at 35. Here again, the Court exercises its discretion to begin with the "clearly established law" prong of the qualified-immunity analysis.
-
643 F. Supp. 1172 N.D. California March 31, 1986 No. C-84-20723
The Court explained: 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.
Read together, the Harlow and Forsyth cases require a two-step approach to the question of qualified immunity.
Moreover, an appellate court would be loathe to review a ruling based on the bare bones of two words— “qualified immunity” — when the defendants did not even suggest below that the complaint failed to allege violations of clearly established
-
868 F. Supp. 326 S.D. Georgia October 17, 1994 No. 493-319
For the law to be clearly established to the point that qualified immunity does not apply, the law must have earlier been developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government actors
Once the qualified immunity defense has been raised, Lassiter further reminds lower courts that they must not permit plaintiffs to discharge their burden of showing that the relevant law was “clearly established” by merely “referring
for purposes of qualified immunity: The clearly established law is that set forth in the discussion above.
-
N.D. Alabama September 2, 2020 No. 5:18-cv-01733Not cited
Qualified immunity protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.
on Skrtich, he did not consider whether those rights were “clearly established.”
harm’ is clearly established to be a violation of the Constitution.”
-
775 F. Supp. 2d 680 S.D. New York March 31, 2011 No. 7:09-cv-05632
Qualified Immunity Defendants also seek dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity.
conclusion that it was ‘clearly established’ in the qualified immunity context.”
Because it was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that to impose PRS administratively was unlawful prior to Earley , it must follow that it was also not clearly established that it was unlawful to do so without
-
720 F. Supp. 2d 1088 W.D. Missouri June 24, 2010 No. 09-3417-CV-S-RED
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to limited discovery on the qualified immunity issue. In Harlow v.
However, subsequent United States Supreme Court cases reveal that limited discovery on the qualified immunity issue is allowed, so long as the plaintiffs allegations state a violation of clearly established law. See Mitchell v.
In Mitchell, the Court opined, 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.
-
790 F. Supp. 239 D. Colorado March 31, 1992 No. 91-C-1993Not cited
Qualified Immunity. Largo argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity.
A plaintiff may overcome asserted qualified immunity by showing that the constitutional right alleged to have been violated was clearly established at the time of the conduct in issue. Stewart v.
Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity, “[t]he plaintiff carries the burden of convincing the court that the law was clearly established.” Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc. v.
-
405 F. Supp. 2d 34 D.D.C. December 20, 2005 No. Civ.A. 02-133(GK)
The Law Was “Clearly Established” for Purposes of Qualified Immunity The Government Defendants next argue that even if Plaintiff can state a constitutional violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not
The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. Id.
Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .
-
D. Maryland November 16, 2020 No. 8:19-cv-02459Not cited
“Qualified immunity shields police officers who commit constitutional violations from liability when, based on ‘clearly established law,’ they ‘could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’” Estate of Jones v.
Clearly Established Law Defendants argue that even if tackling and handcuffing Plaintiff violated his “Fourth Amendment rights against excessive force, qualified immunity protects [them] because the rights were not clearly established
We emphasize, however, that our excessive force holding is clearly established for any future qualified immunity cases involving similar circumstances.”).
-
W.D. New York February 11, 2020 No. 1:11-cv-00540Not cited
Concerming Lilly’s objection to qualified immunity, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, the briefing, and the R&R.
The Court concurs with Judge Foschio’s conclusion that the right at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. ECF No. 110 at 15. Accordingly, Campbell is entitled to qualified immunity. See Ladd v.
App’x 618, 619 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (‘[A] qualified immunity defense is established if . . . the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law ....”).
-
D. New Mexico October 26, 2020 No. 2:20-cv-00452Not cited
Eddy County Defendants failed to raise or argue clearly established prong of qualified immunity.
Defendants did not raise the second prong of qualified immunity or argue that they did not violate clearly established law.
Although the Eddy County Defendants recited qualified immunity law in their standard of review, they did not raise or mention the clearly established prong of qualified immunity in their argument.
-
949 F. Supp. 1461 D. Hawaii June 14, 1996 No. Civil 95-00137 ACK (FIY)
See 887 F.2d 183, 190 (9th Cir.1989) (hearing held on 9/16 after child taken into custody on 9/11 did not violate clearly established constitutional law for purposes of qualified immunity).
Qualified Immunity For Defendant’s Failure to File a Timely Petition 19. An official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right which he allegedly violated is not “clearly established.” Anderson v.
However this "clearly established” analysis is relevant to qualified immunity, not to whether or not there is a constitutional liberty interest. 2 .
-
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
-
D. Colorado July 30, 2026 No. 1:25-cv-03350Not cited
Once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time
The Tenth Circuit has explained the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis as follows: A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that
The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established. . . . Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Aldaba v.
-
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.
-
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 .
-
959 F. Supp. 1481 M.D. Florida February 3, 1997 No. 96-763-CIV-ORL-22
The purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials performing discretionary functions from civil trials and liability if their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
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.
In this case, the Court finds that Roberts and Wallace are entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity because the law is not so “clearly established” in such a “concrete and factually defined context” to make it obvious
-
N.D. Mississippi August 5, 2019 No. 3:19-cv-00004Not cited
Qualified Immunity Lopez has asserted that he is protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.) (quoting Mace v.
such that qualified immunity might not apply.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.