42 U.S.C. § 1983

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit must show a genuine dispute that the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Cutler v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ · filed 2014-09-15

To overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, is sufficient to establish a genuine dispute “(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.” Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011); see also Haverda v. Hays Cnty., 723 F.3d 586, 598 (5th Cir. 2013).

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged conduct would plainly violate a clearly established right.

Spires v. Paul · filed 2014-09-16

For all of the above reasons, Officer Thomas and Deputy Warden Paul are not entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Spires’s complaint. Assuming the truth of Spires’s allegations, it would be abundantly clear to a reasonable officer that housing an inmate in a cell without potable water for at least several days would violate the inmate’s constitutional rights.

Government officials sued individually under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Ratliff v. City of Shannon Hills · filed 2014-09-16

Accordingly, Chief Hale and Officer Lucky are entitled to qualified immunity as to Ms. Ratliff’s § 1983 claims, and the Court need not determine whether Ms. Ratliffs constitutional rights were clearly established.

Under § 1983, a private animal-welfare officer without a historical basis for immunity may be denied qualified immunity; qualified immunity is unavailable in official-capacity suits, including those against a private entity acting for the government.

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee · filed 2014-09-18

We conclude that Hurn, acting as a private animal-welfare officer, may not assert qualified immunity as a defense against suit in her personal capacity because there is no history of immunity for animal-welfare officers and allowing her to assert qualified immunity is not consistent with the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... That McKamey is a private entity acting in a governmental capacity does not change the unavailability of qualified immunity as a defense in an official-capacity suit.

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

Tommy Baker v. Union Township · filed 2014-09-19

Since Baker’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force was violated under the facts conceded and since that right was clearly established at the time of its violation, the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to defeat a grant of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the arrest lacked probable cause or arguable probable cause.

Slack v. County of Suffolk · filed 2014-09-20

In sum, crediting, as the jury has, the evidence presented at the trial which supports the Plaintiffs position that the Plaintiff did not interfere with Ripp when he was arresting Gange, the Court finds that Ripp lacked probable cause or arguable probable cause. Since “[t]he right not to be arrested or prosecuted without probable cause has, of course, long been a clearly established constitutional right” and the jury determined that neither probable cause nor arguable probable cause existed here, there can be no qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the law was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Ford v. Bender · filed 2014-09-24

Since the law was not clearly established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits an excessive-force claim against officers to proceed past dismissal when the allegations plausibly show a violation of a clearly established right.

Davis v. City of San Jose · filed 2014-09-24

However, at this early pleading stage, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to plausibly claim that Defendants violated a right to be free from excessive force that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim arising from an investigatory stop if a reasonable officer could have believed reasonable suspicion existed.

Hargis v. City of Orlando, Florida · filed 2014-09-25

A reasonable officer in Springer’s position could have believed reasonable suspicion existed to stop Hargis and he was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

An official facing a § 1983 sexual harassment claim is not entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right.

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota · filed 2014-09-25

Because the facts of this case are similar to Wright and the complaint alleges more egregious conduct than that found in cases granting officials qualified immunity, the Court concludes that Jenkins’ right was clearly established. Accordingly, the Court will deny Swem’s motion to dismiss.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Duhani v. Town of Grafton · filed 2014-09-26

Since Duhani has failed to establish a violation of his constitutional right, Mclnerney is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Mitchell v. Miller · filed 2014-09-26

But, even if Lytle were more helpful to the Plaintiff, a single out-of-circuit case decided on the basis of a highly fact-specific test does not add up to a robust consensus. Officer Mitchell is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for arrests made with arguable probable cause and a hotel room search conducted under a valid warrant.

Roddy v. City of Huntsville, Alabama · filed 2014-09-29

Because the officers acted with arguable probable cause when they arrested Dr. Roddy and his wife and because Officer Jason Ramsey procured a valid search warrant before searching the Roddys’ hotel room, we conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shielded the officer from the Section 1983 claims brought by a passenger and the estate of a driver killed during a police chase.

Campos v. Van Ness · filed 2014-09-29

For the reasons explained below, the court finds that Van Ness is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the claims by Campos individually and on behalf of Martins because he is shielded by qualified immunity as to both.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Freeman v. Chiprez · filed 2014-09-30

Chiprez was entitled to qualified immunity on Freeman’s unreasonable-search claim, because the warrantless use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to track Freeman’s movements in March 2010 did not violate clearly established law at the time.

Section 1983 claims against individual officers may proceed when the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Barze · filed 2014-09-30

The Court also concludes that Barze and Mills are not entitled to qualified immunity against these claims.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Mills v. City of Shreveport · filed 2014-09-30

Thus, even assuming that Mills has alleged sufficient facts to make out a violation of a constitutional right, both Chief Shaw and Deputy Chief Huddleston are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established right.

Qualified immunity is not at issue in a § 1983 claim seeking only declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against officials in their official capacities.

Bennie v. Munn · filed 2014-09-30

The plaintiff is only seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities, so qualified immunity is not at issue.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

J. Pearl Bussey-Morice v. Gomez · filed 2014-10-01

Because the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Bussey-Morice, demonstrate that Gomez and Hewatt did not violate Bussey’s clearly established constitutional rights, the district court erred when it denied qualified immunity to these officers.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an official when the unlawfulness of the challenged conduct would not have been clear to a reasonable official in that position.

Negrete v. Lewis · filed 2014-10-07

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because during his two-year placement in the prison’s modified program, it would not have been clear to a reasonable prison official in defendant’s position that the curtailment of certain privileges and services, including exercise for varying periods of time, in response to repeated incidents of prison violence, was unconstitutional.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the claimed constitutional right was not clearly established.

Occupy Nashville v. Haslam · filed 2014-10-08

We hold that the State Officials are protected by qualified immunity because, regardless of the specifics of Tennessee’s administrative law, the Protesters’ claimed First Amendment right to unrestricted 24-hour access to the Plaza is not clearly established.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 arrest claim when the undisputed evidence shows at least arguable probable cause.

Trevino v. Benton County, Arkansas · filed 2014-10-08

In particular, we find that, contrary to Trevino’s arguments on appeal, defendants’ affidavits were properly considered by the district court, ... and that the undisputed evidence showed that there was at least arguable probable cause to arrest Trevino, entitling defendants to qualified immunity, see Borgman, 646 F.3d at 522-23 (probable cause for warrantless arrest exists when totality of circumstances are sufficient to lead reasonable person to believe that defendant has committed or is committing offense; arguable probable cause exists where officer mistakenly arrests suspect, if mistake is objectively reasonable).

Qualified immunity did not bar the Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 against the officer.

Harris v. M.D. Byner · filed 2014-10-08

M.D. Byner appeals the denial of qualified immunity and state-agent immunity on Eric Harris’ Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and false imprisonment claim under Alabama law. Following a review of the record, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned order dated January 14, 2014.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless existing law made the unlawfulness of the officer’s specific conduct sufficiently clear to a reasonable officer.

Powell v. Slemp · filed 2014-10-14

Unless existing law would have made it “sufficiently clear” to a reasonable officer in Sgt. Slemp’s position that attempting to restrain Powell with his gun drawn violated her Fourth Amendment rights, Sgt. Slemp was entitled to qualified immunity. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40 (1987). Because no such case law exists, and because the illegality of his actions was not otherwise “beyond debate,” al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083, Sgt. Slemp must prevail on his motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 provides a civil remedy against persons who, under color of state law, deprive someone of federal rights, subject to doctrines such as qualified immunity.

Cass v. City of Dayton · filed 2014-10-16

We begin with the § 1983 claims against House in his personal capacity2 to which House asserted a qualified immunity defense. ... There are two general steps to the qualified immunity analysis. The court must determine whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and whether that right was “clearly established.” ... Applying this framework, and cognizant that the ultimate question is one of objective reasonableness, we find that House did not use excessive force.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue a state actor for violating constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Burdette v. Panola County ex rel. Darby · filed 2014-10-20

Qualified immunity shields a governmental official from suit based on the performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts did not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which a reasonable person would have known. ... In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the court engages in a two-pronged analysis, inquiring (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, (2) whether the defendant’s behavior was objectively reasonable under clearly established law at the' time the conduct occurred. ... If the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional claim or if the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law, then the governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

Section 1983 allows claims against government officials for constitutional violations, subject to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Shah v. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School · filed 2014-10-20

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit and liability for civil damages under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right.

Golodner v. Berliner · filed 2014-10-27

We conclude that Golodner’s 2008 complaint in Golodner I constituted speech that raised matters of public concern protected by the First Amendment and that his right to be free of government retaliation based on such speech was well established at the time defendants sought and selected an alternate security system provider. The district court did not err, therefore, when it determined that the individual defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against officials when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Turner v. Hamblin · filed 2014-10-27

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suits for damages when their actions do not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. ... Accordingly, qualified immunity blocks the Free Exercise claim.

A § 1983 defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts prevent the court from determining whether the asserted right was clearly established.

Gregory v. City of Vallejo · filed 2014-10-28

But because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether that killing was necessary, the court cannot determine whether, as a matter of law, the federal right at issue was clearly established.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 suit when no clearly established law would have alerted them that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Mordi v. Zeigler · filed 2014-10-29

There is no clearly established law that the three Offic- ers before us violated, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when their use of force was objectively reasonable and violated no constitutional right.

Risdal v. Nixon · filed 2014-10-30

Viewing the uncontradicted evidence in the light most favorable to Risdal, we conclude defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts would show that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Hampton v. Thomas Atzert, Jr. · filed 2014-11-04

There are also genuine issues of material fact about whether Atzert is entitled to qualified immunity. ... The version of the record facts most favorable to Hampton would make it clear to a reasonable officer in Atzert’s shoes that his conduct was unlawful.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when probable cause supports the arrest warrant the officer obtained.

Hall v. Efimenco · filed 2014-11-04

We have reviewed the record and find, based on the undisputed material facts, that the district court correctly found that probable cause supported the arrest warrant obtained by Defendant, as the facts and circumstances within Defendant’s knowledge supported his reasonable belief that Hall had impersonated a fire marshal in violation of Virginia law. Thus, the court properly found that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 plaintiff who fails to carry the burden of opposing summary judgment on qualified immunity cannot proceed against the officials.

White v. Brown · filed 2014-11-04

White has failed to carry his burden in opposing summary judgment based on qualified immunity. See Gates, 537 F.3d at 419.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established right.

McNeal v. Kott · filed 2014-11-04

Because McNeal cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Kott and LaLonde deserve qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when disputed facts could support a finding that the officer used force maliciously rather than to preserve discipline and security.

Johnson v. Milliner · filed 2014-11-04

Under Johnson’s version of the facts and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to him, a reasonable jury could conclude that the force was not applied in a good faith effort to preserve discipline and security. Accordingly, Milliner’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for excessive force on an officer protected by qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established.

Deavers v. Vasquez · filed 2014-11-05

In sum, the Court finds that qualified immunity shields Deputy Vasquez from liability for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the law in the Fourth Circuit does not clearly establish as a general proposition that unduly tight or forceful handcuffing without more violates the Fourth Amendment.

An official is entitled to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim if either part of the qualified immunity inquiry fails.

Hall v. Sutton · filed 2014-11-05

If either inquiry can be answered in the negative, the official is entitled to summary judgment.

Qualified immunity shields an official from a Section 1983 claim when an objectively reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful.

Conrad v. New Hampshire Department of Safety & a. · filed 2014-11-06

We conclude that an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that refusing to postpone the plaintiff’s investigatory interview and refusing to accept the plaintiff’s resignation were lawful. ... Accordingly, we hold that Myrdek was entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable officer in the same position could not have believed there was probable cause for the arrest.

Rogers v. Stem · filed 2014-11-06

Because culpability under section (F) turns on the private compounder’s specific intent, and because Officer Stem lacked any information regarding the private compounder’s intent, a reasonable officer in Stem’s position could not have believed he or she had probable cause to arrest Rogers. Thus, we conclude that Officer Stem is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official sued under §1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Carroll v. Carman · filed 2014-11-10

A government 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 of the challenged conduct.

Police officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim if a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to arrest.

Hall v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-11-13

Plaintiff alleges a Section 1983 claim against officers Doe and Lee in Count I of her complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). This Court dismisses Count I and finds that defendants Doe and Lee are protected by qualified immunity. A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a “reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest.”

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that the challenged conduct was unconstitutional.

Cantley v. West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority · filed 2014-11-14

Because the law was not clearly established, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the strip search of Teter.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful at the time.

West v. Murphy · filed 2014-11-14

The district court ultimately was correct that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish at the time that the searches were conducted that they were unlawful.

An arresting officer sued under Section 1983 for false arrest is immune from damages if the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Brown v. Hoffman · filed 2014-11-14

An arresting officer is immune from a suit for damages if he or she had arguable probable cause to arrest a plaintiff (see Escalera v Lunn, 361 F3d 737, 743 [2d Cir 2004]). ... Thus, the record before us demonstrates that material issues of fact also persist as to whether or not defendant had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the allegedly violated right was not clearly established at the time.

Maney v. Fealy · filed 2014-11-17

Therefore, the Court finds that Officer Garrison is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs excessive force claim on the basis of second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if he had arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Davis v. City of Atlanta, Georgia · filed 2014-11-18

Wolford is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if he had “arguable probable cause” for the arrest.

Section 1983 defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when there is no constitutional deprivation.

Crews v. Monarch Fire Protection Dist. · filed 2014-11-18

Having found no constitutional deprivation, Swyers and Evans are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a genuine factual dispute exists over whether detention officers used excessive force against a pretrial detainee.

Dunston v. Harrison · filed 2014-11-18

The district court held that the Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Dunston had shown the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Appellants had violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. ... 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’ motion for summary judgment on Dunston’s due process claims. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court’s comprehensive opinion.

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive force claim cannot be resolved at summary judgment when material factual disputes require a jury to decide which account to believe.

Hill ex rel. Estate of Hill v. Adkins · filed 2014-11-18

Therefore in this particular case, qualified immunity is subject to the version of the facts the jury chooses to believe and liability cannot be resolved by the Court at this juncture. As such, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Prison officials sued under § 1983 lack qualified immunity when clearly established law gives them notice that deliberately ignoring dangers caused by disclosure of an inmate’s HIV status violates his rights.

Doe v. Beard · filed 2014-11-18

The Court rejects that argument. The right to medical privacy is clearly established. ... The Court finds that the Defendants do not have a defense of qualified immunity in this case.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability when the plaintiff cannot show deprivation of a clearly established right.

McQuail v. Tennessee Technological University · filed 2014-11-18

Fourth, regardless of the basis of the claim, Defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity which shields governmental officials from liability for conduct which does not violate a clear established constitutional statutory right, ... and Plaintiff has not carried her “burden to prove that the state officials are not entitled to qualified immunity,” ... by showing that she was deprived of a clearly established right.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Hood v. Montgomery County Texas · filed 2014-11-19

Because Hood has failed to show that the Appellees violated a clearly established constitutional right, the Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Hood’s claims.

An officer sued for false arrest under Section 1983 is immune from damages if the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

BrownofHoffman · filed 2014-11-20

An arresting officer is immune from a suit for damages if he or she had arguable probable cause to arrest a plaintiff (see Escalera v Lumn, 361 F3d 737, 743 [2d Cir 2004]).

Section 1983 officials may claim qualified immunity from damages unless their conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Dougherty v. Philadelphia School District · filed 2014-11-21

Appellants challenge the District Court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. We will affirm. ... “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged use of force violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Koiro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2014-11-21

Further, the Court finds that as a matter of law, the actions alleged by Koi-ro — an unprovoked attack by a police officer, consisting of pushing or jumping on Koiro from behind, causing him to fall over, and repeatedly punching him in the sides, stomach and back of the head— violated a clearly established right. Cata-nese is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity for Koiro’s § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action does not apply to claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Curtiss v. Benson · filed 2014-11-26

We note that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply to Curtiss’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Section 1983 affords qualified immunity to police officers performing their duties when their actions do not violate clearly established rights.

Cicci v. Chemung County · filed 2014-11-26

Police officers performing their governmental duty are entitled to qualified immunity “as long as their actions did not violate the plaintiffs clearly established legal rights” (Colao v Mills, 39 AD3d 1048, 1050 [2007]; see Baez v City of Amsterdam, 245 AD2d 705, 706-707 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]).

A defendant in a § 1983 action forfeits qualified immunity on appeal by failing to raise the defense in a Rule 50 motion at trial.

Ayers v. City of Cleveland · filed 2014-12-02

Because Cipo and Kovach failed to raise their qualified-immunity defense in either a Rule 50(a) or Rule 50(b) motion, they have forfeited the defense on appeal.

Officers sued under § 1983 for unlawful entry are entitled to qualified immunity when their entry violates no Fourth Amendment right.

Fialdini v. Cote · filed 2014-12-05

Finding no Fourth Amendment violation, we need not proceed to an analysis of whether the alleged violation was clearly established. ... We agree with the district court that defendants Cote, Sanford, and Gaither are entitled to qualified immunity on Appellants’ unlawful entry claims.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when no reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed on the facts found by the jury.

Harewood v. Braithwaite · filed 2014-12-05

Accordingly, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not insulate Braithwaite from the jury’s determination that he is liable for false arrest.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims against officials for conduct before the asserted right became clearly established.

A.M. ex rel. Youngers v. New Mexico Department of Health · filed 2014-12-05

Moreover, the “special circumstances” exception to the qualified-immunity analysis does not apply. Consequently, the Court will grant the MTD as to the Individual DOH Defendants’ conduct that occurred before June 18, 1982, and deny the MTD as to the Individual DOH Defendants’ conduct that occurred after June 18,1982.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would know that falsifying an arrest affidavit to punish someone for political support violates clearly established rights.

Williams v. Walters · filed 2014-12-08

Because a reasonable official would understand that including false information in and omitting relevant information from an affidavit in an effort to punish someone for supporting one’s political opponent would constitute a violation of clearly established constitutional rights, Walters is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts do not show a violation of a clearly established right.

Thomas v. Carter · filed 2014-12-08

Because the facts as alleged by Thomas do not support a conclusion that the Medical Defendants violated a clearly established right, the Medical Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits claims against government officials for constitutional violations, subject to qualified immunity when the right was not clearly established.

Hunt v. Massi · filed 2014-12-10

We conclude that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to the defendants for the plaintiffs' claim of excessive force. When defined at the appropriate level of specificity, the necessary question is whether Hunt had a clearly established right to have his hands cuffed in front of him due to an alleged injury despite the officers' judgment call to the contrary. There is no such clearly established right. ... For these reasons, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs' excessive force claim.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials may be barred by qualified immunity.

Lockhart v. City of Easton · filed 2014-12-11

We also agree with the District Court that Appellees’ actions in executing the search warrants and arresting Lockhart were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and in the alternative, even if the actions were unreasonable, the individual Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue officials who violate constitutional rights under color of state law, subject to qualified immunity.

Reeder v. Oakley · filed 2014-12-11

Under Reeder’s version of events, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity does not apply if an official violates a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and “[a] warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a person’s home, and any resulting search or seizure, violates the Fourth Amendment unless it is supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances.”

Section 1983 claims against officials in their individual capacities are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Gibson v. Kilpatrick · filed 2014-12-11

We hold that Kilpatrick is entitled to qualified immunity and reverse the district court’s order to the extent that it denied qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a correctional officer from a § 1983 claim when existing law gave fair warning that the officer’s conduct violated an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Reeves v. King · filed 2014-12-16

We conclude a reasonable correctional officer in Lieutenant King’s position would have known, based on Irving and Norman, labeling Reeves a snitch for reporting on a prison nurse who was bringing contraband into the prison would violate his constitutional right to protection from harm. Accordingly, the district court properly denied qualified immunity to Lieutenant King.

A public official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted federal right was not clearly established enough for a reasonable official to know the conduct violated it.

Granato v. Davis · filed 2014-12-19

However, the trial court did err in denying Shott qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The asserted property right of Plaintiff-Appellee, Mary Granato, in her husband’s body was not so clearly established that a reasonable official such as Shott would have believed that Granato was entitled to constitutional due process.

An officer seeking qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim must show either that the officer did not violate the asserted constitutional right or that the right was not clearly established.

Krein v. L. Price · filed 2014-12-19

To receive qualified immunity, Price must prove either (1) that his conduct did not violate the constitutional right at issue (here, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive force) or (2) that the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Id. at 232, 236. For purposes of summary judgment, Price cannot satisfy either prong.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence shows that his use of force was objectively reasonable.

Thomas v. City of San Antonio, Texas · filed 2014-12-19

For the foregoing reasons, we find that Baldwin was entitled to qualified immunity from appellants’ § 1983 excessive force claim and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the officer is not entitled to summary judgment on that defense.

Luna v. Texas Department of Pub Sf · filed 2014-12-19

Because we conclude that Mullenix is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity, we affirm.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when their belief that a person posed a serious threat was objectively reasonable, even if mistaken.

Partlow v. Officer Joseph Stadler · filed 2014-12-22

In light of the undisputed facts, taken together with Partlow’s version of the disputed facts, a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to believe that Partlow posed a threat of serious physical harm, and any mistake in believing that he posed such a threat was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that Stadler, Craig, and Mann are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Madden v. Regional University System · filed 2014-12-24

To rebut a defendant’s qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show (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. ... As stated more fully below, the court concludes plaintiff has not made the necessary showing and that defendants are entitled to judgment based on qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that clearly established law would have alerted reasonable officers that their conduct violated a right.

Abbo v. State of Wyoming · filed 2014-12-30

We need only conclude Mr. Abbo has not demonstrated the law was so clearly established that reasonable officers would have known they were violating Mr. Abbo’s rights by searching his car and seizing his person after smelling what they believed to be raw marijuana. Without such a showing, the district court was correct to grant the troopers qualified immunity.

Probation officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law requires probable cause for a probation violation arrest.

Jones v. Chandrasuwan · filed 2014-12-30

Finding that this right is not clearly established, this court determines that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, even if there was some sort of constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive-force claim when existing law gave an officer fair warning that the shooting would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Montero v. Nandlal · filed 2014-12-31

But assuming Plaintiff’s version of the facts to be correct, as we must do in reviewing a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, existing case law provided sufficient warning to alert Nandlal to the fact that shooting Montero, under these circumstances, would violate the latter’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, qualified immunity for Deputy Nandlal is not warranted on these facts.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit must produce evidence that the official violated a clearly established right.

Gibson v. Kilpatrick · filed 2015-01-02

Given the lack of evidence clarifying Gibson’s role when he made his reports to the FBI and the DEA, we hold that Gibson has not met his burden of producing evidence sufficient to show that Kilpatrick violated his clearly established constitutional rights, and, as such, summary judgment should have been granted for Kilpatrick.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct violates no clearly established constitutional right.

Quiles Ex Rel. Estate of Quiles v. City of Tampa Police Department · filed 2015-01-05

Moreover, given the circumstances and the train of precedents, we are even more confident that Officer Savitt, in 2011, violated no clearly-established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known; as a matter of law, he personally is entitled to immunity.

A defendant sued in an official capacity under § 1983 cannot claim qualified immunity from municipal liability.

Trent v. Wade · filed 2015-01-09

These allegations demonstrate that the Trents sued Walling in his official capacity, not in his individual capacity. The Trents’ theory of liability therefore plainly is grounded in municipal liability. ... Walling may not be insulated by qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 damages action, qualified immunity is assessed using the facts and law at the time public officials act, without regard to later developments.

Jackson v. Warden Carl Humphrey · filed 2015-01-13

Thus, the entitlement to the protections of qualified immunity is judged based on the facts and the law present at the time that public officials make their decisions and does not take into account later facts or changes in the law.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a government official unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Nation · filed 2015-01-14

The Complaint must demonstrate not only that the defendant violated a constitutional right, but also that that constitutional right is “clearly established” within the meaning of the qualified immunity jurisprudence. The Complaint does not satisfy that burden.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Cutino v. Untch · filed 2015-01-14

Here, despite viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Cutino, the Court finds that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

Qualified immunity does not protect officers from a § 1983 medical-care claim when a jury could find that they unreasonably delayed treatment for reasons unrelated to securing the scene.

Scozzari v. City of Clare · filed 2015-01-15

However, in this case, a reasonable jury could find that the alleged conflicting objectives were carried out in a way that would not meet the standard for qualified immunity. ... A jury could conclude that, in the face of such a serious medical need, Defendants were deliberately indifferent by delaying Scozzari’s access to medical treatment for non-medical reasons unrelated to securing the scene.

In a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim, an officer lacks qualified immunity when the alleged facts show no arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Baig v. Hargis · filed 2015-01-16

As for qualified immunity, we must consider whether Officer Hargis at least had “arguable probable cause” to arrest Ms. Baig. Again, the alleged facts refute such a characterization.

Public officials have qualified immunity from § 1983 liability for discretionary acts when they act within their authority and in good faith, including when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury, LaMotte, Oddy, Ruggles, Rust, Timson and Town of St. Johnsbury · filed 2015-01-16

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability when they are: “(1) acting during the course of their employment and acting, or reasonably believing they are acting, within the scope of their authority; (2) acting in good faith; and (3) performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts.” ... We therefore conclude that the law was not clearly established and the selectboard is entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant facing a Section 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right.

Ragsdell v. Regional Housing Alliance · filed 2015-01-16

In the absence of precedential or persuasive support for this constitutional right, Ms. Lopez is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 prolonged-detention claim when clearly established law required independent justification for questioning after the search ended.

Guillory v. Hill · filed 2015-01-16

The trial court was persuaded by defense counsel’s arguments that (1) Hill’s questioning could be construed as part of the search of the premises; alternatively that (2) Hill was entitled to qualified immunity because no authority “clearly established” she needed independent justification for the questioning if the search had ended; and (3) discovery of the slot machines and marijuana independently furnished a basis under Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 to detain and question all the plaintiffs. As we explain in the published portion of this opinion, these justifications fail under clearly established law, and because as a factual matter a jury reasonably could conclude the search had ended before Hill’s questioning began, the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when existing precedent did not give reasonable officials fair warning that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

M. C. v. Amrhein · filed 2015-01-26

Because we find that no then-extant precedent gave fair warning to those involved in the decision regarding M.C.’s surgery that they were violating his clearly established constitutional rights, we reverse.

In a Section 1983 suit, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts do not establish arguable probable cause for a prolonged mental-health seizure.

Bruce v. Guernsey · filed 2015-01-26

This record does not establish as a matter of law that Guernsey, whose only indication that Bruce might commit suicide was the knowledge that someone had said Bruce was potentially suicidal, reasonably believed that he had probable cause to continue to seize her. ... On this view of the facts, Guernsey is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

M.C. ex rel. Crawford v. Amrhein · filed 2015-01-26

Because we find that the alleged rights at issue in this case were not clearly established at the time of M.C.’s 2006 sex assignment surgery, we need not reach the question of whether M.C. alleged sufficient facts to show that the surgery violated his constitutional rights.

In a § 1983 false-arrest claim, an officer may have qualified immunity if there was arguable probable cause, even without actual probable cause.

Windham v. City of Fairhope · filed 2015-01-29

In the context of § 1983, however, a police officer may be entitled to qualified immunity even if there was no actual probable cause for an arrest, so long as there was arguable probable cause.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Parker v. Officer Adam Chard · filed 2015-01-29

Based on White and J.L., it was not clearly established that Chard and Illetschko—having corroborated the running asserted in the eyewitness tip, and knowing shoplifting recently occurred—could not reasonably suspect Parker of shoplifting. ... The officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An official sued in an individual capacity under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged unlawfulness was not clearly established at the time.

Alday v. Groover · filed 2015-01-29

This Court need not reach that conclusion because we determine that Groover is entitled to qualified immunity.

An official sued only in his official capacity on a municipal-liability claim cannot invoke qualified immunity from § 1983 liability.

Trent v. Wade · filed 2015-01-29

These allegations demonstrate that the Trents sued Walling in his official capacity, not in his individual capacity. The Trents’ theory of liability therefore plainly is grounded in municipal liability. ... Walling may not be insulated by qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Elfand v. County of Sonoma · filed 2015-01-30

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Tannehill and Cogbill on the basis of qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Section 1983 claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of clearly established law.

Davis v. City of Fort Worth · filed 2015-02-02

Thus, Appellants cannot show that Romer’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law at the time the incident occurred.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable.

Davis v. City of Fort Worth · filed 2015-02-03

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity.

When a defendant raises qualified immunity in a § 1983 case, the plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established when the violation occurred.

Calderin v. Schottenheimer · filed 2015-02-05

In § 1983 cases where the defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that defendant violated a constitutional right and that that right was clearly established when the violation occurred.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when a reasonable official could believe the challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

O'Connor v. Spain · filed 2015-02-05

Because a reasonable town manager could conclude that suspending Plaintiff would not violate her free speech rights, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, no material fact dispute exists that would preclude summary judgment on Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against Defendant in his individual capacity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when arguable probable cause supports the arrest.

McKally v. Perez · filed 2015-02-06

Because McKally’s arrest was supported by arguable probable cause and did not violate McKally’s constitutional rights, Perez is entitled to qualified immunity on the single section 1983 claim raised in the Complaint.

Qualified immunity is unavailable to a government employee sued only in an official capacity under § 1983.

Eggenberger v. West Albany Township · filed 2015-02-09

Because Moechnig is sued in his official capacity and not his individual capacity, qualified immunity is unavailable.

Qualified immunity does not support a directed verdict on a Section 1983 prolonged-detention claim when clearly established law required independent justification and a jury could find the search had ended.

Guillory v. Hill · filed 2015-02-10

The trial court was persuaded by defense counsel’s arguments that (1) Hill’s questioning could be construed as part of the search of the premises; alternatively that (2) Hill was entitled to qualified immunity because no authority “clearly established” she needed independent justification for the questioning if the search had ended; and (3) discovery of the slot machines and marijuana independently furnished a basis under Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 to detain and question all the plaintiffs. As we explain in the published portion of this opinion, these justifications fail under clearly established law, and because as a factual matter a jury reasonably could conclude the search had ended before Hill’s questioning began, the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict.

In a Section 1983 suit, once officials prove they acted within their discretionary authority, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Shuford v. Conway · filed 2015-02-12

The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of proving that they were acting with the scope of their discretionary authority. The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to establish that qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Section 1983 permits a claim against officers to proceed when the pleaded facts plausibly show that qualified immunity does not protect them.

De Vincenzi v. City of Chico · filed 2015-02-18

De Vincenzi alleges that the officers heard his cries but delayed his rescue, and ... thus he has sufficiently pleaded facts that could plausibly give rise to a § 1983 claim under which the officers may not be entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Cole v. Fluery · filed 2015-02-20

Thus, as a matter of law, no excessive force was used against Cole by either defendant. That entitles Cpl. Fleury and CO Dube to qualified immunity from Count I.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when clearly established law forbids the force they used.

Contreras v. Benavides · filed 2015-02-20

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that shooting an unarmed, physically trapped suspect in the back four times is excessive force.

A § 1983 defendant may assert qualified immunity against a discovery order without first filing a motion to dismiss.

Zantiz v. Seal · filed 2015-02-20

Accordingly, we hold that filing a motion to dismiss is not required before a defendant can assert qualified immunity as a defense to a discovery order.

Qualified immunity shields an official from liability under § 1983 for a retaliatory referral when the right to be free from that referral was not clearly established.

Thompson v. Ohio State University · filed 2015-02-20

The Court therefore cannot conclude that Dr. Salimbene had fair warning that a retaliatory referral to the OSC violated Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. ... For those reasons, the Court concludes that Dr. Salimbene is immune from liability on Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim.

A defendant facing a Section 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional duty was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Tiscareno v. Frasier · filed 2015-02-23

Because a private hospital had no clearly established obligation to locate and disclose exculpatory evidence, IHC is entitled to qualified immunity on the Brady claim.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when no reasonable officer could have believed their conduct lawful under clearly established law.

Parenteau v. Silva · filed 2015-02-23

Summary judgment also was not appropriate on qualified immunity grounds because, construing the facts in favor of Parenteau, Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014) (per curiam), no reasonable officer could have believed the entry was lawful in light of the clearly established law.

Individual defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they acted objectively unreasonably in light of a clearly established constitutional right.

Rankin v. City of Highland Park · filed 2015-02-24

In sum, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Given the applicability of qualified immunity, the individual defendants were entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) in respect to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Bonner v. Bob Alford · filed 2015-02-25

Because Bonner has failed to show that the appellees violated a clearly established constitutional right, the appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Bonner’s claims.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Torres v. Read · filed 2015-02-25

Therefore, Read did not violate a clearly established right and he was entitled to summary judgment on both Torres’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

In a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply once a defendant invokes it.

Toney v. Owens · filed 2015-02-26

“[W]hen a defendant invokes the defense of qualified immunity, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense.”

Qualified immunity does not bar claims for injunctive or declaratory relief under § 1983.

Hayes v. Bolen · filed 2015-02-27

In addition to his claim for damages, Hayes pleaded claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Qualified immunity does not preclude such prospective relief.

To overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 damages claim, a plaintiff must show a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established when the officials acted.

Pippin v. Elbert County, Colorado · filed 2015-03-02

To win that relief, Mr. Pippin must carry the “heavy burden” of showing both that (1) the defendants violated one of his constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) “the infringed right at issue was clearly established at the time of the allegedly unlawful activity such that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he [was] doing’ violated the law.” ... We don’t have to revisit the district court’s ruling on the first of these questions because it’s clear enough that he hasn’t carried his burden on the second.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer in their position would not have known the force was unlawful.

Teal v. Campbell · filed 2015-03-04

For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that every reasonable officer in the shoes of these Defendants would conclude that the force used was unlawful.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the law does not clearly establish that the official’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Benes v. City of Dallas · filed 2015-03-04

This discussion of the relevant Garcetti factors shows that the case law does not clearly establish whether Benes was speaking pursuant to his job duties or as a citizen. ... We therefore agree with the district court that Puckett did not violate clearly established rights and was entitled to summary judgment.

Defendants in a § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish that they violated a constitutional right.

Pennycuff v. McNutt · filed 2015-03-05

Defendants assert that plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should be dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Plaintiff has failed to meet his heavy burden of establishing defendants violated his First Amendment right and, therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a § 1983 action is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when a genuine factual dispute remains over whether he violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Crumbley v. Roberts · filed 2015-03-06

Because there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Roberts violated Crumbley’s constitutional rights, and because these rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994), Roberts is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Michalowski v. Rutherford · filed 2015-03-06

Thus, taking the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true and drawing all inferences in Mi-chalowski’s favor, Rutherford violated a clearly established constitutional right and he is not entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity.

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when there was no constitutional violation.

Murchison v. Rogers · filed 2015-03-11

Because there was no constitutional violation and Murchison cannot succeed on his claim, the prison officials were also entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not address whether the district court erred in dismissing the supervisory prison officials.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 search claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Q.D. Hudson · filed 2015-03-11

In the light most favorable to Mrs. Williams, the evidence fails to show that the Officers violated a clearly established constitutional right of Mrs. Williams.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when their conduct was not plainly incompetent or a knowing violation of the law.

Weiner v. McKeefery · filed 2015-03-11

Here, there is no evidence that the Suffolk County officers’ conduct in arresting plaintiff was plainly incompetent or that they engaged in a knowing violation of the law, and, thus, Officer McKeefery and Sergeant Maietta are entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Morris v. City of New York · filed 2015-03-12

Because this was a close call, officers of reasonable competence could disagree about whether there was probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim for false arrest on the ground that the officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing law would not have made the alleged constitutional violation apparent to a reasonable officer.

Quinn v. Young · filed 2015-03-13

It follows ineluctably that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not entitle an officer to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material factual disputes could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Capps v. Olson · filed 2015-03-16

Capps's parents, Jerry and Jaylene Capps, sued Deputy Olson for using excessive force against their son in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... At this stage in the proceedings, Deputy Olson is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Section 1983 provides a remedy for constitutional rights violations by people acting under color of state law, subject to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Police Department District of Columbia · filed 2015-03-17

The Court finds Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unlawful arrest and excessive force claims.

Section 1983 claims may be subject to qualified immunity, and an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity is available only in limited circumstances.

Shoulders v. Baton Rouge Police Dept · filed 2015-03-18

Although a denial of summary judgment is typically not subject to appeal, defendants have a limited ability to contest the denial of qualified immunity. ... Under the collateral order doctrine, we may immediately review a district court’s denial of qualified immunity if it is “based on a conclusion of law.” ... We DISMISS Coleman’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1983 provides a private right of action for constitutional violations and permits qualified immunity defenses for municipal employees unless clearly established rights were violated.

Robinson v. Pezzat · filed 2015-03-19

Although 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a private right of action for Fourth Amendment violations, municipal employees acting within the scope of their official duties may raise qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 claims are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Puller v. Baca · filed 2015-03-20

Because even the modified affidavit establishes probable cause, Puller cannot establish a constitutional violation on his false arrest, malicious prosecution, and substantive due process claims. ... Accordingly, Puller is entitled to qualified immunity on all Puller’s claims depending on a lack of probable cause.

Section 1983 permits civil rights claims against government officials, subject to qualified immunity when the violated right was not clearly established.

Tearpock-Martini v. Borough · filed 2015-03-20

Accordingly, we cannot find that the right was clearly established at the time and qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants.

Section 1983 permits claims against government officials, subject to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Toney v. Owens · filed 2015-03-23

With respect to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity, ... i.e., they “‘generally are shielded 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.’”

Section 1983 provides a damages remedy against government officials, subject to qualified immunity.

Hagan v. Quinn · filed 2015-03-23

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit for performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 allows damages claims against officials who violate constitutional rights under color of state law, subject to qualified immunity.

Lozada v. Weilminster · filed 2015-03-23

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that State Defendants are not immune from Plaintiffs Section 1983 claims for false arrest and excessive force and that Trooper Nolan is not immune from her First Amendment retaliation claim.

Section 1983 claims against government officials may be barred by qualified immunity.

Lyons v. Vaught · filed 2015-03-24

Accordingly, Vaught and Bassa are entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Section 1983 allows claims against individual state officials for violating federal rights, subject to qualified immunity when the right was not clearly established.

Reyes v. Hickenlooper · filed 2015-03-25

In light of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiffs’ fourth claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice.

Section 1983 permits damages claims for constitutional violations by state actors, subject to qualified immunity.

Rosales v. Kikendall · filed 2015-03-26

To award damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged violation of procedural due process, a court must find that, as the result of conduct performed under color of state law, the plaintiff was deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. ... Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings.

Section 1983 provides damages claims against state actors who violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Cocroft v. Smith · filed 2015-03-26

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects a state actor from liability for damages under section 1983 as long as his conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional or federal statutory rights. The official’s actions are gauged by a standard of objective reasonableness. ... To obtain the benefit of qualified immunity, a police officer need not follow an unquestionably constitutional path. The case at hand exemplifies this point; where, as here, a section 1983 action rests on a claim of false arrest, the qualified immunity standard is satisfied ‘so long as the presence of probable cause is at least arguable.’ ... I find that the presence of probable cause for the arrest is not arguable. Furthermore, a ■ reasonable officer in Officer Smith’s position would have known that his conduct violated Cocroft’s rights. Accordingly, Officer Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims may be barred by qualified immunity when the alleged civil rights violations stem from protected petitioning activity.

Bernstein v. Village of Wesley Hills · filed 2015-03-27

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for any civil rights violations stemming from their filing of that action. ... Plaintiffs must therefore establish an issue of material fact as to whether Defendants committed an Equal Protection violation in order to proceed to trial, and the Court accordingly considers Plaintiffs’ Equal-Protection-based § 1983 claims together with Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 permits claims against a person acting under color of state law for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights, including malicious prosecution subject to specified elements.

Benavidez v. Shutiva · filed 2015-03-31

“Further, in the Tenth Circuit, analysis of a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim is guided by the following elements: “(1) the defendant caused the plaintiff’s continued confinement or prosecution; (2) the original action terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) no probable cause supported the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution; (4) the defendant acted with malice; and (5) the plaintiff sustained damages.”

Section 1983 permits claims against government officials for constitutional violations, subject to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Cavanagh v. Taranto · filed 2015-03-31

Accordingly, to the extent Cavanagh’s § 1983 claim is based on the defendants’ purported deliberate indifference to the serious risk Ms. Scopa posed to herself by not taking certain protective steps' appropriate for someone identified as suicidal, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits a false arrest claim against a state actor, subject to qualified immunity when the officer had arguable probable cause.

Nzegwu v. Secret Service Agent Eric Friedman · filed 2015-04-01

Claims for false arrest, whether brought under § 1983, pursuant to Bivens, or under state law, are analyzed pursuant to the same standards as the applicable state law’s false arrest tort. ... Defendants need not have had actual probable cause to arrest Nzegwu, however, in order to prevail. To support a qualified immunity defense, “the defending officer need only show ‘arguable’ probable cause.”

Section 1983 claims against police officers may proceed when qualified immunity does not shield them from excessive force allegations.

Thompson v. Lake · filed 2015-04-03

The district court erred in concluding that the Sparks police officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to allegations that they used excessive force by subjecting Battershell to excessively tight handcuffing.

Section 1983 allows damages actions against people acting under color of state law who violate federally secured civil rights.

White v. Chapman · filed 2015-04-06

A civil suit for damages may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against persons acting “under color of state law*! who violate civil rights secured by the federal law, Mial v. Sherin, No. 1:11-cv-921 (GBL/IDD), 2012 WL 2838424, at *5 (E.D.Va. July 9, 2012) (citing Gregg v. Ham, 678 F.3d 333, 339 (4th Cir.2012)). ... Based on the evidence in the record, the Court holds that Defendant Phillips is not entitled to qualified immunity and denies Defendant Phillips’ Motion for Summary Judgment for two reasons.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law.

Henricks v. Pickaway Corr. Inst. · filed 2015-04-08

John Henricks, an Ohio prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, as relevant to this appeal, that Dr. Ida Gonzalez, a doctor at his prison, and Officer Michael Maynard, a correctional officer, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ... However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Dr. Gonzalez and Officer Maynard waived qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against correctional officers may be dismissed before service when qualified immunity is established on the face of the complaint.

Kendrick Story v. Foote · filed 2015-04-09

It is unnecessary and inefficient to address whether Story adequately pleaded a constitutional violation, see Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236-37, if the defense of qualified immunity is established on the face of the complaint.