42 U.S.C. § 1983

In a § 1983 suit, a defendant’s summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity shifts to the plaintiff the burden to raise facts disputing immunity.

Estate of Randy Lynn Cheney v. Wanda Collier, et a · filed 2014-03-24

When, however, a defendant’s summary-judgment motion is premised upon qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise facts that dispute the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer would have known their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Hunt v. Massi · filed 2014-03-25

Qualified immunity protects public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. ... Accordingly, officers Massi and Porter are not entitled to qualified immunity and this Court DENIES their motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Egberto v. McDaniel · filed 2014-03-27

Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars individual-capacity § 1983 retaliation claims when the asserted equal protection right was not clearly established.

Siani v. State University of New York at Farmingdale · filed 2014-03-28

Thus, the right to be free from retaliation under the Equal Protection Clause is not clearly established, barring (under the doctriné of qualified immunity) the individual-capacity § 1983 retaliation claims.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment when a genuine factual dispute bears on whether the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

Owens v. Jackson County Board of Education · filed 2014-03-31

Assuming that relying on those recommendations would have been objectively reasonable, evidence in the record creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harding did rely on the recommendations.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim is not reduced because a person threatening an officer seeks “suicide by cop.”

Lal v. State of California · filed 2014-03-31

A police officer’s immunity does not become less if his assailant is motivated to commit “suicide by cop.”

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Kostic v. Texas A & M University at Commerce · filed 2014-03-31

Under these circumstances, the Individual Defendants’ alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law insofar as Plaintiff asserts that they retaliated against him by taking any action other than terminating him.

Municipal defendants cannot assert qualified immunity against § 1983 claims.

Pollack v. Regional School Unit 75 · filed 2014-03-31

Because the District is a municipality, not an individual, it cannot avail itself of the qualified immunity defense that shielded Allen.

Qualified immunity does not bar Section 1983 claims against state officials sued only in their official capacities.

Hall v. Louisiana · filed 2014-03-31

Here, Sharper has alleged claims against Jindal and Caldwell in their official capacities only. Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity is inapplicable. Accordingly, Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Hall’s Section 1983 claims against Jindal and Caldwell on this basis is DENIED.

An officer’s qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim depends on whether the officer violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time.

Lal v. California · filed 2014-03-31

In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.

A school official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist · filed 2014-04-02

Accordingly, Morgan’s allegations are not sufficient to overcome Swanson’s qualified immunity defense.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 arrest claim when a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest.

Herbig v. Kretzer · filed 2014-04-04

In short, even considering the deficiencies in Kretzer’s investigation which are pointed out in Herbig’s § 1983 complaint, there was evidence from which a reasonable officer could believe there was probable cause to arrest Herbig for ... sexually abusing his daughters. As a result, Kretzer is protected from suit by qualified immunity, and the district court properly dismissed Herbig’s complaint.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when the officer violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Streater v. Wilson · filed 2014-04-07

Qualified immunity shields government officials in their individual capacities from civil liability “unless the § 1983 claim satisfies a two-prong test: (1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ such that a reasonable person would have known his acts or omissions violated that right.” ... We hold therefore that Officer Wilson violated J.G.’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence permits a jury to find a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Gaillard Ex Rel. Estate of Gaillard v. Commins · filed 2014-04-07

In sum, we conclude that Officer Commins has not shown that the district court erred in denying him summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to Gaillard’s excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

When an official invokes qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and a genuine factual dispute about the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct.

Carlow v. Rivera · filed 2014-04-07

Once a government official invokes qualified immunity, however, the burden of proof shifts to plaintiff to show: (1) “a violation of a clearly established constitutional right” and (2) “genuine issues of material fact concerning the [objective] reasonableness” of the official’s conduct, “under clearly established law existing at the time of the incident”.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for warrantless monitoring and recording of a noncustodial suspect’s privileged attorney-client conversations.

Gennusa v. Canova · filed 2014-04-08

The district court therefore correctly held that Det. Marmo and Sgt. Canova were not entitled to qualified immunity for their warrantless monitoring and recording of the privileged attorney-client conversations between Mr. Studivant and Ms. Gennusa.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when earlier circuit precedent on substantially similar facts established that immunity did not apply.

Flournoy v. Colbenson · filed 2014-04-15

Defendant Colbenson’s motion for a finding of qualified immunity fails because it has been previously held by the Seventh Circuit, on facts substantially similar to those alleged in this case, that qualified immunity did not exist in 2005, several years prior to the incident at issue in the present case.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against prison medical staff when a jury could find that they were deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.

Vinson v. Walls · filed 2014-04-16

The district court held that the Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Vinson’s Eighth Amendment claim against them because a jury could conclude, based on the evidence reviewed in the light most favorable to Vinson, that the Appellants were deliberately indifferent to Vinson’s serious ... medical needs. ... Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district court’s opinion, and the applicable law, and having heard oral argument, we conclude that the district court correctly denied the Appellants’ request for summary judgment on Vinson’s Eighth Amendment claim against them. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court’s comprehensive opinion.

Public officials who properly and timely assert qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim are entitled to a reviewable ruling before they must proceed further in district court.

Payne v. Britten · filed 2014-04-16

When an official properly and timely files a motion for dismissal or for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, the official is entitled to a ruling on the issue of qualified immunity. As such, the district court must issue a reviewable ruling—either granting or denying qualified immunity—before requiring the officials to progress further in litigation at the district court.

Officers with arguable probable cause to make an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim challenging that arrest.

Granger v. Williams · filed 2014-04-18

Since plaintiffs did not bring a § 1983 claim against Brouillette however, what we have is an order granting Williams, Shaffer and Theriault summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. ... We find that their arguments lack merit; for, as the District Court correctly concluded, the “Officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for being involved in an altercation.” Order at 7. ... The District Court’s judgment is affirmed to the extent that it grants defendants Williams, Shaffer and Theriault qualified immunity on the federal claims.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Griffin v. Berghuis · filed 2014-04-21

As a result, even if their conduct could have formed the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim, Berghuis and Sutherby were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 false arrest and malicious prosecution claim when an indictment establishes probable cause and the complaint alleges no facts supporting knowingly false grand jury testimony.

Constantine v. Gadeken · filed 2014-04-23

The district court held that Gadeken was entitled to qualified immunity1 because Constantine failed to demonstrate that Gadeken lacked probable cause in regard to her arrest and prosecution. ... Accordingly, without facts to establish more than a mere possibility that Gadeken presented false testimony to the grand jury, the indictment conclusively established that Gadeken had probable cause against Constantine. ... After carefully reviewing the district court opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss or denying Constantine’s motion to amend.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false-arrest claim when no clearly established law requires them to resolve a suspect’s claim of self-defense before arresting him for an admitted killing.

Sanchez v. Labate · filed 2014-04-24

We conclude that Sanchez has failed to show that it was clearly established in 2009 that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting him after he admitted killing a man, even though he claimed he shot the man in self-defense.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit depends on whether the officer violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time.

Bowels v. City of Porterville · filed 2014-04-24

In determining whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, we consider: (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s alleged misconduct.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the corrected warrant affidavit supports probable cause.

Pines v. Bailey · filed 2014-04-25

Because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Pines, discloses “no genuine dispute” as to the existence of probable cause, Walczyk, 496 F.3d at 158, Bailey is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Bailey’s summary judgment motion on that ground and remand for the entry of judgment on Pines’s § 1983 claim.

A plaintiff suing officers individually under Section 1983 bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not protect them.

Ruby Sheffey v. City of Covington · filed 2014-04-28

Further, in order for these individual defendants to be held liable under § 1983, it is the plaintiffs burden to show that they are not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against prison officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Brown v. Oregon Department of Corrections · filed 2014-04-29

Although we conclude that a lengthy confinement without meaningful review may constitute atypical and significant hardship, our case law has not previously so held, and we cannot hold defendants liable for the violation of a right that was not clearly established at the time the violation occurred.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a reasonable officer would know the force was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Demone Smith v. J. Buck · filed 2014-05-01

Under these facts, a reasonable officer would not think that redeploying the police dog was a reasonable amount of force.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity when the right to a name-clearing hearing was clearly established.

King v. Garfield County Public Hospital District No. 1 · filed 2014-05-01

c. Defendants’ request for summary judgment for the hospital officials on qualified immunity grounds is DENIED.

Subordinate officers carrying out a supervisor’s strip-search order are not entitled to qualified immunity when the supervisor lacks it.

Hernandez v. Montanez · filed 2014-05-02

Because Mendonsa, the prison superintendent, is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, the subordinate defendants are also not entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, a court deciding qualified immunity at summary judgment may not resolve genuine factual disputes in favor of the official seeking judgment.

Tolan v. Cotton · filed 2014-05-05

But under either prong, courts may not resolve genuine disputes of fact in favor of the party seek- ing summary judgment.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Marquez v. Garnett · filed 2014-05-06

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. ... Marquez has not shown that C.M.’s substantive due process rights were violated. Fifth Circuit law squarely forecloses Marquez’s claim against Garnett. Accordingly, she was entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Arnold v. Bunn · filed 2014-05-09

Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Bunn.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established in the specific circumstances.

Brown v. Smith · filed 2014-05-13

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Mayor Smith’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity, and the § 1983 claim asserted against him in his individual capacity must be dismissed.

In a § 1983 damages claim, qualified immunity requires the plaintiff to show a violation of a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Smith v. Peter Gilchrist, III · filed 2014-05-14

To survive a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must satisfy the following two-prong test: “(1) the allegations underlying the claim, if true, substantiate [a] violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right; and (2) this violation was of a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Ridpath v. Board of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 306 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law made the officer’s warrantless entry into a home’s curtilage unconstitutional.

Carman v. Carroll · filed 2014-05-15

Based on Marasco, which pre-dated Carroll’s conduct, it was clearly established that the trooper’s warrantless entry into the Carmans’ curtilage violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim requires an individual assessment of each defendant’s conduct and state of mind.

Krutko v. Franklin County, Ohio · filed 2014-05-15

In doing so, the court neglected to identify evidence showing each Deputy’s deliberate indifference to Krutko’s condition.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison warden from a § 1983 claim when a jury could find deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs and the right was clearly established.

Stoudemire v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2014-05-15

Accordingly, for the reasons that have been set forth above, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) with respect to the state law claims against Davis and Dunagan, and denies their request as it pertains to Davis’ claim of qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim requires an individualized assessment of each official’s conduct and knowledge.

Walton v. Dawson · filed 2014-05-20

The doctrine of qualified immunity requires “an individualized analysis of each officer’s alleged conduct.” Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966, 974 (8th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added).

Individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Derfus v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-05-20

Because Plaintiffs have not identified any basis for the proposition that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the relevant time, the Court concludes that the individual officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under § 1983.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 liability when no clearly established law required him to credit exculpatory facts over facts supporting probable cause.

Kinlin v. Kline · filed 2014-05-21

Furthermore, even if these facts did vitiate probable cause, Kinlin cites no authority requiring Trooper Kline to credit these facts over the facts supporting probable cause to arrest Kinlin for driving under the influence of alcohol. Absent some such authority, the clearly-established-law prong of qualified immunity also protects Trooper Kline from liability.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against officers whose warrantless entry into a home violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Morris v. Town of Lexington Alabama · filed 2014-05-21

In short, the officers entered Morris’s house without a warrant or anything remotely approaching reasonable suspicion. Therefore, they violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court properly declined to dismiss Count I under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

An interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim does not prevent discovery on legally distinct claims against a city for which the official cannot assert that defense.

Harris v. City of Balch Springs · filed 2014-05-21

These claims, as pleaded and in light of rulings made by the court, are only against the City, not Morris. As such, the defense of qualified immunity is not available and may not be asserted by Morris as to Counts One, Two, Five, and Six of Plaintiffs Complaint. Discovery may proceed on those claims that are legally distinct and for which a party may not assert the defense of qualified immunity.

For an intent-based § 1983 claim, a plaintiff opposing a properly supported qualified-immunity motion for summary judgment must identify evidence from which a jury could find the required motive.

Burns v. Eaton · filed 2014-05-23

Accordingly, when an official’s intent is an element of the § 1983 claim, as it is in Eighth Amendment excessive force claims, and if the official has made a properly supported motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff “must identify affirmative evidence from which a jury could find that the plaintiff has carried his or her burden of proving the pertinent motive.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 600 (1998).

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the alleged conduct was unlawful at the time.

Wordley v. Officer Pablo San Miguel · filed 2014-05-23

Given Rodriguez and Smith, even if Officer San Miguel’s actions constituted excessive force, the potential constitutional violation at issue was not clearly established by existing case law at the time of Mr. Wordley’s arrest.

Officers lack qualified immunity from a Section 1983 retaliatory prosecution claim when they charge someone without probable cause for exercising a clearly established right to film police in public.

Gericke v. Begin · filed 2014-05-23

Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the officers on Gericke's section 1983 claim that the wiretapping charge ... constituted retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment.

An official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Plumhoff v. Rickard · filed 2014-05-27

An official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “ ‘clearly estab­ lished’ ” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Genuine disputes of material fact can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim.

Lund v. Henderson · filed 2014-05-27

Similarly, genuine issues of material fact foreclose the entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity can shield jail officials from a § 1983 claim challenging shower privacy.

Terrance Hood v. D. White · filed 2014-05-28

Following careful review, we affirm both orders because we agree with the district court that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Qualified immunity protects an official in a § 1983 action who reasonably relies on mistaken facts.

Curlin Pennick, III v. Williamson · filed 2014-05-29

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Williamson reasonably relied on the Passover meals-list which mistakenly omitted Pennick.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against prison officials for untimely periodic reviews of administrative segregation.

Guillen v. Owens · filed 2014-05-30

To the extent that defendants may have failed to conduct timely periodic reviews, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity under the unique facts of this case.

A school official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when no existing authority clearly established the particular right asserted at the time of the official’s conduct.

Morgan v. Plano Independent School Dist · filed 2014-06-03

Where there is no authority recognizing an asserted right, and where the area of law is as “abstruse” and “complicated” as First Amendment jurisprudence, that right cannot be clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity analysis.

A defendant seeking to dismiss a § 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds must establish entitlement to immunity from the facts on the face of the complaint.

Bryant v. Steele · filed 2014-06-03

Here, the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to show “on the face of the complaint” that probable cause or arguable probable cause existed to involuntarily hospitalize the Plaintiff.

Section 1983 defendants sued personally are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official could have believed their conduct lawful.

Delaney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority · filed 2014-06-04

A reasonable official could easily have concluded that the shift change and decision to keep Logan on active duty did not violate the Constitution. Qualified immunity protects defendants’ reasonable judgments.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged conduct was not clearly established as unconstitutional when it occurred.

Bettie Smith v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2014-06-06

Because we find none, and these case facts do not show an obvious constitutional violation, each officer is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions during the second encounter with Smith. The alleged conduct, even if unconstitutional, was not clearly established as such when it occurred.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the challenged arrest was constitutional.

Reid v. Henry County, Georgia · filed 2014-06-09

Having determined that Officer Slaton’s arrest of Reid was constitutional, Officer Slaton is entitled to qualified immunity protection with respect to Reid’s section 1983 claims.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 when the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Cahaly v. Larosa · filed 2014-06-10

For these reasons, Defendants LaRosa and Lloyd are entitled to qualified immunity for any damages alleged by Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiffs First Amendment claim under § 1983.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliatory arrest claim when the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp · filed 2014-06-11

We agree that Kopp is entitled to qualified immunity on Peterson’s retaliatory arrest claim because, as detailed above, Kopp had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when reasonable officers could disagree about the legality of their conduct.

Burgess v. Town of Wallingford · filed 2014-06-12

In sum, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendants-Appellants on the claim of false arrest and unlawful seizure because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer who uses unprovoked force without a good-faith reason cannot claim qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim.

Anderson v. Aparicio · filed 2014-06-12

In this case, drawing inferences in favor of plaintiff, there was no reason for the use of the force employed, let alone a good-faith reason. Therefore, Aparicio cannot seek the protection of qualified immunity.

Officers cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 bodily privacy claim at summary judgment when the evidence permits a finding that they knowingly exposed arrestees without a legitimate need.

Mitchell v. Stewart · filed 2014-06-12

If a jury believes Plaintiffs’ version of what happened, it would be authorized to find that Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were exposed yet escorted them out of the house without any reasonable belief that it would have been unsafe or impracticable to allow Plaintiffs to put on some clothes first. Under these circumstances, Defendants should have known better. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims relating to the manner of their arrests.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Soto v. City of Miami Beach · filed 2014-06-13

Accordingly, Defendant Simon and Defendant Guasto had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, Defendant Simon and Defendant Guasto are entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiff’s claims against them for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Counts I and II must fail.

Officers sued under Section 1983 for false arrest are entitled to qualified immunity when they had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Brown v. Cole · filed 2014-06-17

In these circumstances, we conclude the officers enjoyed qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Mr. Brown for assault with a dangerous weapon.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when a genuine dispute of material fact remains about the officer’s entitlement to it.

Tolan v. Cotton · filed 2014-06-17

Considering the summary-judgment record de novo in the light of the rulings in the Court’s opinion regarding that record, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) (summary-judgment standard), a genuine dispute of material fact exists for whether Officer Cotton is entitled to summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, against Robert Tolan’s excessive-force claim. Therefore, we hold Officer Cotton is not entitled to summary judgment, on that basis, against that claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 for false arrest has qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed, even if that belief was mistaken.

Gibbs v. Lomas · filed 2014-06-17

In sum, even if Officer Lomas was mistaken in believing that she had probable cause to arrest Mr. Gibbs, such a mistake was reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and in light of the undeveloped case law regarding subsection 947.01(2). Consequently, contrary to the conclusion of the district court, Officer Lomas was entitled to qualified immunity for her arrest of Mr. Gibbs.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when no reasonable officer could believe repeated punches to an unarmed, non-menacing arrestee were lawful.

O'Hara v. City of New York · filed 2014-06-18

Further, like the district court, we conclude that no reasonable officer confronting the circumstances of this case, viewed most favorably to O‘Hara, could have thought that the law authorized him repeatedly to punch an unarmed, non-menacing 17-year old in effecting an arrest.

A prison officer facing a § 1983 excessive force claim cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when a jury could find that he used force maliciously without a legitimate security reason.

Turner v. Rataczak · filed 2014-06-18

Because the defendant’s intent weighs so heavily in the excessive force standard, if a jury concludes that a plaintiff has met that standard, a prison official cannot then claim that he reasonably believed his actions were lawful. ... Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an officer protected by qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Saiger v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-06-19

Because Saiger has not identified any basis for the proposition that the constitutional right at issue was clearly established that the relevant time, the Court concludes that Chapman is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages under section 1983.

Section 1983 claims against public officials in their individual capacities are subject to qualified immunity.

Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission · filed 2014-06-19

Section 1983 claims against public officials in their individual capacities are subject to the defense of qualified immunity.

A prison official sued under § 1983 for gang validation is entitled to qualified immunity when some evidence supports the inmate’s gang association.

Frias v. Marshall · filed 2014-06-23

For the same reason, we affirm the district court’s holding that Marshall was entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Laquinn Fisher v. City of Mesa · filed 2014-06-23

Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss on the basis that they are shielded by qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not make local government officials liable for damages when their conduct violated no clearly established federal law.

Snyder v. Gaudet · filed 2014-06-25

Where, as here, however, municipal officials did not violate any clearly established federal law, federal law provides no basis for making local government officials pay damages.

In a § 1983 procedural due process claim, the Parratt doctrine does not affect whether the right was clearly established for qualified immunity.

Daily Services, LLC v. Valentino · filed 2014-06-26

Thus, while courts may consider the Parratt doctrine to determine whether the plaintiff has alleged a procedural due process violation, courts should not consider the Parratt doctrine to determine whether the due process right at issue was clearly established.

Section 1983 provides qualified immunity to a government official unless the official violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Nord v. Walsh County · filed 2014-06-26

"In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields a government official from liability unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Section 1983 defendants receive qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution claim when the alleged conduct preceded the decision clearly establishing that the conduct violated constitutional rights.

Amobi v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections · filed 2014-06-27

Nevertheless, because the relevant conduct at issue in this case occurred before we issued our decision in Pitt, clearly establishing malicious prosecution as a violation of constitutional rights, qualified immunity is appropriate here.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution claim when the plaintiff fails to show clearly established law permitting the claim despite probable cause for a simultaneous charge.

Van De Weghe v. Chambers · filed 2014-06-27

Put differently, he hasn’t borne his burden of demonstrating that the law is clear that an individual may pursue a claim for malicious prosecution when at least some of the charges against him were supported by probable cause. The failure to carry that burden is fatal to his claim.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances.

Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri · filed 2014-07-01

Judge Gaertner did not have notice that his termination of an insubordinate employee who compromised the propriety and efficiency of his courtroom could violate her right to free speech. The district court correctly determined Judge Gaertner was entitled to qualified immunity on Hemminghaus’s § 1983 claim.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known.

Smith Ex Rel. Kolski v. City of Brooklyn Park · filed 2014-07-03

"A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official's conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known." ... Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Glirbas and Cudd.

An officer who had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Vega v. Ripley · filed 2014-07-03

Because no reasonable jury could conclude that Ripley lacked probable cause to arrest Vega, Ripley is entitled to qualified immunity and Vega cannot establish a prima facie case of malicious prosecution.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Velasquez v. Audirsch · filed 2014-07-03

We conclude that the law at the time of the Officers’ entry into the' Velasquezes’ home did not clearly establish that the Officers were unreasonable in believing the threat Efrain posed to himself or others constituted exigent circumstances.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials may be dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds when the plaintiff leaves that defense uncontested.

New Vision Photography Program, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-07-07

Additionally, Plaintiffs never addressed the argument that the individual Defendants – DDS employees Anderson and Moses – have qualified immunity from § 1983 claims. The Court will treat these as conceded as well and dismiss all § 1983 claims against them.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence cannot support a finding that they violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Lakin v. Barnhart · filed 2014-07-07

Finally, because the district court was on firm ground in finding no potential for a reasonable jury to determine that defendants violated Landry and Lakin’s Eighth Amendment rights, we conclude that the trial court likewise correctly held that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must show that the defendants violated a federal right and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Leatherwood v. Welker · filed 2014-07-08

To defeat defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Mr. Leatherwood must show that defendants violated a federal right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 claim for a detention that violates clearly established law.

Amili v. City of Tukwila · filed 2014-07-10

The relevant facts are undisputed, and the Court concludes that the law was clearly established that this detention would be illegal. ... To suggest that qualified immunity is nonetheless available is to suggest that qualified immunity will always protect an officer’s reasonable-suspicion determinations, no matter how ill-founded.

Section 1983 qualified immunity could not rest on the claim that the burden imposed on an inmate’s religious exercise was not clearly established.

Holland v. Goord · filed 2014-07-10

The district court ruled that it had not been clearly established at the time of the order that “Directive # 4937, or a substantially equivalent policy, placed a substantial burden on an inmate’s religious liberty,” ... a conclusion that we reject by our holding today.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated clearly established law, even if the court does not decide whether the conduct was unconstitutional.

Harper v. Davis · filed 2014-07-11

In sum, Harper failed to show that defendants infringed his clearly established constitutional rights. Thus we grant Gourley and Davis qualified immunity without directly assessing the constitutionality of their conduct.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent allowed them reasonably to believe their conduct was lawful.

Mpoy v. Rhee · filed 2014-07-15

Accordingly, because this court read its preexisting law as yielding the test we announced in Winder, it could not have been unreasonable for the defendants to do so as well. Presswood and Rhee are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would have known that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Cordell v. McKinney · filed 2014-07-16

Under this standard, as discussed above, we conclude that any reasonable official would ... know that ramming a handcuffed and controlled prisoner headfirst into a concrete wall is an unreasonable method of regaining control of a prisoner in a hallway occupied only by other jail officials. See Schreiber, 596 F.3d at 333. Therefore, Cordell’s rights were clearly established as of July 20, 2009, and granting qualified immunity at this time is inappropriate.

A jail official who has an opportunity to stop another officer’s excessive force may be denied qualified immunity when the duty to intervene was clearly established.

Dwain Smith v. Conway County, Arkansas · filed 2014-07-16

Choate is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, show a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Walters v. Freeman · filed 2014-07-16

Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Walters, demonstrate that Freeman violated her clearly established constitutional rights, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Freeman.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest when their reliance on dispatcher information was objectively reasonable.

Josh Williams v. Decker · filed 2014-07-18

The officers, then, are entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest of Williams.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 Fourth Amendment retaliation claim when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Deputy v. City of Seymour · filed 2014-07-21

Thus, even if Ms. Deputy’s Fourth Amendment retaliation claim is cognizable, the Court concludes that Chief Abbott is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Wilson v. Village of Los Lunas · filed 2014-07-22

It is enough to know that in July 2009 it was not clearly established in this circuit that there is a First Amendment ... right to be free from retaliatory arrest when the arrest is supported by probable cause. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for an arrest supported by arguable probable cause.

Moreno v. Turner · filed 2014-07-22

Even if we accept Moreno’s contention that he was arrested, we nonetheless must conclude that Officer Gonsalves-Barreiro is entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the right they violated was not clearly established at the time of their actions.

Iswed v. Caruso · filed 2014-07-22

This court in 2009 concluded that the officials were wrong, but this later ruling does not strip the defendants of qualified immunity for their actions taken in 2005.

An off-duty law enforcement officer may be entitled to qualified immunity as a public official in a § 1983 suit.

Legrand v. Texas Dept of Public Safety · filed 2014-07-23

Although Gillman was off-duty at the time of the altercation, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity as a public official.

An off-duty law enforcement officer can be entitled to qualified immunity as a public official in a § 1983 action.

Legranb v. Gillman · filed 2014-07-23

Although Gillman was off-duty at the time of the altercation, he is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity as a public official.

An officer cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when genuine factual disputes prevent the court from deciding whether the officer is protected.

Van Bui v. City of San Francisco · filed 2014-07-25

As explained below, the court disagrees because genuine issues of material fact prevent the court from deciding whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred or whether the officers are protected by qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Eugene De Boise, Sr. v. St. Louis County, Missouri · filed 2014-07-28

We, therefore, hold that even if Officers Percich’s and Lively’s repeated tasings of De Boise amounted to excessive force in violation of De Boise’s Fourth Amendment rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident.

A factual dispute over whether officers saw a suspect with a gun can prevent summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim.

Zepeda v. County of Los Angeles CA2/7 · filed 2014-07-28

This issue would bear directly on the officers’ ability to assert a qualified immunity defense as to the section 1983 cause of action and thus summary judgment should not have been granted on this cause of action.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when clearly established law leaves no arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Kopperud v. Mabry · filed 2014-07-28

Drawing all inferences and viewing this record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it was already clearly established under Georgia law that no arguable probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff for criminal trespass. Given the assumed facts, we accept that summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not demanded at this stage in the proceedings.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity when, taking the plaintiff’s facts as true, clearly established law gave the official fair warning that her conduct was unconstitutional.

Mango v. Myers · filed 2014-07-30

Myers may very well prove and prevail on her version of the facts, but she cannot now demonstrate that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint does not allege a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Malcolm v. Ramonvil · filed 2014-07-31

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim.

Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen · filed 2014-07-31

The estate has failed to show that Defendant’s behavior was a clearly established violation of Brook’s constitutional rights at the time it occurred. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 claim against an officer can survive summary judgment when the evidence raises genuine factual disputes about the rights violation and qualified immunity.

Escobar v. Harris County · filed 2014-07-31

We conclude that Escobar presented evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to each essential element of her section 1983 claim against Deputy Goodney and to overcome his claim of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not defeat a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Miles v. Rich · filed 2014-07-31

Because we may not review the existence of these fact issues and must view them in the light most favorable to Miles, we conclude that the record does not establish that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because, if proven, the facts could show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Miles’s serious medical needs.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a right that was clearly established at the time of their conduct.

McGrath v. Tavares · filed 2014-08-01

In any event, even if a constitutional violation was established, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

Qualified immunity bars relief under § 1983 unless the officer violated the claimant’s constitutional rights and those rights were clearly established at the time.

Ragsdale v. Sidoti · filed 2014-08-01

The first concerns the standard for granting qualified immunity to a police officer in the face of a § 1983 action. The standard requires us to consider two questions: Did the officer violate the claimant’s constitutional rights, and if so were those rights “clearly established” at the time of the incident? Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201–02 (2001). Only if the claimant can satisfactorily answer both inquiries may he obtain relief.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 retaliation claim when clearly established law protects the speech at issue.

Charles Wells, III v. City of Grosse Pointe Farms · filed 2014-08-04

Accepting Arnone’s account, ample precedent establishes the right to be free from retaliation by a police officer offended by constitutionally-protected insults and criticism. We thus affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence shows a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Blazek v. Santiago · filed 2014-08-05

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Blazek, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Medical providers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their care was at most negligent.

Syveno Wright v. Johnson · filed 2014-08-06

Accordingly, we conclude defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Federal law governs qualified immunity defenses to Section 1983 claims brought in state court.

El Paso Independent School District v. McIntyre · filed 2014-08-06

Finally, even where the qualified immunity defense is raised in response to a Section 1983 claim in state court, it must still be evaluated under federal, and not state, law.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, viewing the facts in the detainee’s favor, a jury could find that their conduct amounted to unconstitutional punishment.

Jackson v. Phelps · filed 2014-08-07

Examining all of the facts in the light most favorable to Jackson, we cannot conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

A § 1983 plaintiff can overcome a public official’s qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage by alleging facts that plausibly show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and objectively unreasonable conduct.

Cox v. Nueces County, Texas · filed 2014-08-07

Accordingly, on the face of the pleadings, Cox has negated Kaelin’s qualified immunity defense for the purposes of this stage of the proceedings.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a government official when the plaintiff does not allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Hatcher v. Cheng · filed 2014-08-07

Furthermore, Cheng is entitled to qualified immunity because Hatcher has not alleged that Cheng has violated a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Dowell v. Lincoln County, Missouri · filed 2014-08-08

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... As no statements made by Dowell without counsel present were introduced at trial, Dowell failed to allege a violation of the right to counsel. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting Defendants summary judgment on Dowell’s Sixth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when a material dispute remains about the plaintiff’s resistance.

Chacon v. City of Austin, Texas · filed 2014-08-11

The district court did not err in concluding that a dispute of material fact exists as to Chacon’s resistance under the third Graham factor. Such a dispute does not counsel in favor of a grant of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison medical professional from a § 1983 claim for ignoring severe symptoms when clearly established law required care based on what the professional knew at the time.

Al-Turki v. Robinson · filed 2014-08-12

A medical professional may not ignore an inmate’s complaints of severe pain and then escape liability because later-discovered facts about the actual cause and ultimate duration of the inmate’s pain, while serious enough to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim, do not precisely correspond with the facts of previous Tenth Circuit cases.

A prison official cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for denying treatment of a serious medical need when the inmate’s right to that treatment was clearly established.

Warren v. Prison Health Services, Inc. · filed 2014-08-13

Lastly, Shilling argues that even if her conduct amounted to a constitutional violation, the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of Warren’s death. See Nurse Br. 35–40. But an inmate’s right to receive medical treatment for a serious medical need was clearly established by 2010.

Section 1983 defendants cannot obtain summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the plaintiff has shown a material factual dispute over an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim.

Bowden v. Stokely · filed 2014-08-14

While we agree with defendants that there is no per se rule barring qualified immunity in Eighth Amendment cases, where the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged or shown a material dispute of fact as to an excessive force claim, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not appropriate.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that the challenged conduct violated constitutional rights.

Meehan v. Officer Scott Thompson · filed 2014-08-14

We thus cannot say that Thompson violated Meehan’s clearly established constitutional rights in transporting her to a detox facility, for the state of the law was not so clear that a reasonable officer would have known that such an arrest violated Meehan’s constitutional rights.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Jacobson v. McCormick · filed 2014-08-14

In our view, two decisions from other circuits did not place the issue beyond debate, and a reasonable correctional officer in Minnesota could have believed—like the district court in this very case—that Jacobson’s admission that he recently smoked a bowl of marijuana gave reasonable suspicion to believe that he could be secreting contraband in private areas of his body. McCormick and Voltaire are thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action is unavailable at summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains.

Connie Berry v. Davis · filed 2014-08-18

Upon careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precluded qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity from an unconstitutional confinement claim when the officer reasonably believed probable cause supported an arrest warrant.

Bates v. Hadden · filed 2014-08-19

Because Officer Hadden was not objectively unreasonable in believing that probable cause existed to support a warrant for Bates's arrest, he is entitled to qualified immunity on Bates's unconstitutional confinement claim.

Qualified immunity cannot support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when the court resolves a disputed material fact against the plaintiff.

Mathis v. Adams · filed 2014-08-19

Similarly, the district court erred in concluding the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity 1 because in making this determination it failed to resolve a disputed question of material fact—i.e., whether Adams or Mathis struck first—in Mathis’s favor.

Section 1983 permits individual officials to assert qualified immunity, but a city cannot invoke that defense.

Allman v. Smith · filed 2014-08-19

The defense of qualified immunity is lim- ited to individuals, but as the city’s liability is derivative from the mayor’s it wanted to show that he had not violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

When qualified immunity is denied in a § 1983 suit, the district court must provide findings and conclusions sufficient for appellate review.

Ingrassia v. Dicknette · filed 2014-08-20

This court remands the case so that the district court can make findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit appellate review of defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Officers sued under § 1983 for false arrest or malicious prosecution are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonably competent officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Diop v. City of New York · filed 2014-08-21

Here, the Court holds that, as a matter of law, officers of reasonable competence could disagree about whether Diop’s arrest and prosecution were supported by probable cause, and thus that Officers Blake and Martillo are entitled to qualified immunity on Diop’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 false-arrest suit cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss when a factual dispute remains over whether officers permitted the conduct underlying the arrest.

Garcia v. Does · filed 2014-08-21

Defendants-appellants ask us to definitively conclude, on the limited record before us on their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their arrest of a. group of demonstrators. Because we cannot resolve at this early stage the ultimately factual issue of whether certain defendants implicitly invited the demonstrators to walk onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, which would otherwise have been prohibited by New York law, we AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge).

Police officers may be entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim.

Garcia v. Does 1-40 · filed 2014-08-21

On appellants’ petition for rehearing, we now conclude that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can entitle a prison officer to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim.

Kartman v. Markle · filed 2014-08-22

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal regarding the claims against Skidmore, and we find that the district court correctly determined that Skidmore was entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, they failed to address a known suicide risk in violation of clearly established law.

Penn v. Escorsio · filed 2014-08-22

Rather, we simply hold that, on the clearly established law conceded by Defendants themselves and the reasonable pro-plaintiff inferences drawn by the district court below, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a motion to dismiss when the complaint does not establish the defense as a matter of law.

Biswas v. Kwait · filed 2014-08-25

Nothing on the face of the Complaint establishes that any defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence permits a finding that his use of lethal force was unreasonable and the right was clearly established.

Williams Ex Rel. Estate of Williams v. Holley · filed 2014-08-25

Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence surrounding the use of lethal force makes it clear Holley is not entitled to qualified immunity on Roseetta’s excessive force claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 lack qualified immunity when a reasonable official would have known their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Baggett v. Ashe · filed 2014-08-26

Ultimately, a reasonable individual in Defendants’ position could not have concluded that permitting male officers to videotape female inmates during strip searches — even if the officers looked away — was constitutional. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment in a Section 1983 action when material facts bearing on the defense remain disputed.

Simcoe v. Gray · filed 2014-08-27

Accordingly, summary judgment should not have been granted based on qualified immunity where, as here, there are genuine disputes of material fact.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a motion to dismiss a Section 1983 claim when the available materials leave factual questions about the defense.

Biswas v. Kwait · filed 2014-08-28

Nothing on the face of the Complaint establishes that any defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. To the extent that exhibits to the Complaint or documents incorporated by reference suggest that qualified immunity may be appropriate, these documents at best raise questions of fact.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, an officer acting within his discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lenning v. Brantley County, Georgia · filed 2014-08-28

Therefore, plaintiff Lenning must show that Jones’s conduct violated Lenning’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure through excessive force.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf · filed 2014-08-28

The doctrine 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 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

A defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing the asserted right was not clearly established.

Smith v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2014-08-29

We conclude only that Sheriff Baca is entitled to qualified immunity because the law governing Smith’s right to travel claim is not clearly established.

Qualified immunity protects an official acting within discretionary authority from § 1983 damages when a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful.

Georgia Carry Org, Inc. v. Kabler · filed 2014-08-29

However, because Kabler was a government official acting within his discretionary authority, we must view this question through the lens of the qualified-immunity doctrine, which immunizes such a government official from liability unless his conduct violates clearly-established ... federal law. ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding Kabler entitled to qualified immunity on Theobald’s § 1983 claim, and we further conclude that Appellants lack standing to assert their claims for declaratory judgment and prospective injunctive relief.

A social worker who allegedly obtained a child seizure order through deliberate, material falsehoods is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim at the pleading stage.

Stephens v. Hamilton County Jobs & Family Services · filed 2014-09-02

These allegations support a claim that Hunt stated a deliberate falsehood which was material to the finding of probable cause for the magistrate’s order. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, Hunt is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Section 1983 does not give an officer qualified immunity for using force that, on the plaintiff’s alleged facts, violated clearly established limits on reasonable force.

Chriswell v. O'Brien · filed 2014-09-03

It has long been clearly established that an officer’s use of force is limited to what is reasonable under the circumstances; that forecloses O’Brien’s contention that the officer can use as much force as he deems necessary to obtain “unquestioned command over the situation.” On Chriswell’s allegations, which we must accept for current purposes, no physical force at all was reasonable (O’Brien had not even asked her to get out of the car) and O’Brien’s acts violated clearly established rules.

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Reinhardt v. Kopcow · filed 2014-09-04

Accordingly, the Courts finds that Defendants enjoy qualified immunity from liability for any civil damages, and as a result Defendants’ Motion is granted as to Plaintiffs’ claim for monetary damages related to the prison visitation policies.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for gratuitous force against a handcuffed, nonresisting suspect.

Saunders v. Duke · filed 2014-09-08

Here the force allegedly used against Mr. Saunders was gratuitous and constitutionally excessive, so that qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when material factual disputes bear on whether they violated a clearly established right.

Margeson v. White County, TN · filed 2014-09-08

Accordingly, because the law regarding use of force is clearly established, and because genuine issues of material fact abound in this case, summary judgment is not appropriate.

An individual-capacity defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when his conduct violated no federal right.

Kerns v. Independent School District No. 31 · filed 2014-09-08

Based on the above analysis, Alexander’s actions did not violate a constitutional right. Alexander is therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim asserted against him in his individual capacity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Montanez v. Celaya · filed 2014-09-08

Thus, the Court determines that Officers Baran and Powell are not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture concerning their entry into Montanez’s home to effect his arrest or at any time thereafter.

Section 1983 claims against school board members for equal protection retaliation are subject to qualified immunity when no clearly established right protects against that retaliation.

Quigg v. Thomas County School District · filed 2014-09-09

If she claims that the Defendant Board Members violated the Equal Protection Clause and are liable under § 1983, then qualified immunity protects them.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when the evidence permits a jury to find that a state official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Walton v. New Mexico State Land Office · filed 2014-09-12

Additionally, the Court will deny the MSJ (QI), because Walton has produced sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated and because the right of an employee to be free from retaliation based on her political affiliation with a prior administration was clearly established at the time Walton’s position was terminated.