42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 claims cannot be dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds before the record is sufficiently developed.

Stanek v. St. Charles Community Unit School District 303 · filed 2015-04-09

It was also premature to dispense with the Staneks’ § 1983 claims on qualified-immunity grounds with such an undeveloped record.

Section 1983 claims against government officials may be barred by qualified immunity, but qualified immunity does not apply when a reasonable jury could find violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Mitchell v. Harvey E. Stewart, III · filed 2015-04-09

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages. ... We find it was clearly established at the time of the incident in question that the Plaintiffs had a broad constitutional right to bodily privacy, and that in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants violated that right. ... Thus, for the same reasons we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, we affirm the district court’s denial of official immunity on the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Brown v. georgiacarry.org, Inc. · filed 2015-04-10

Having “arguable reasonable suspicion” to detain Belt and ask for his identification, the officers were acting in the course of their official duties when they asked Belt to produce identification. Summary judgment therefore should have been granted on the ground of qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution claim under 42 USC § 1983.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity for government officials.

Gonzalez v. Huerta · filed 2015-04-10

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability when they are acting within their discretionary authority and their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for government officials who make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.

Murphy v. Goss · filed 2015-04-16

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Ninth Circuit recently restated familiar guidance for analyzing qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment: ... As discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim for violations of his statutory or constitutional rights. Defendants,, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 allows claims against officials for constitutional deprivations subject to qualified immunity and permits municipal liability when a policy or custom causes the injury.

Ragland v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2015-04-20

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 established’” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Section 1983 allows suits against state actors for deprivation of federal rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Jackson v. City of New York · filed 2015-04-21

Plaintiff Nancy Jackson, who sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure, false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, and malicious prosecution, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants after a jury trial. ... As for Jackson’s false arrest claim, the district court did not clearly state whether it entered judgment for Officer Montesquieu based on Jackson’s failure to present legally sufficient evidence, qualified immunity, or both. In any event, any error was harmless in light of the jury’s determination that Montesquieu was entitled to qualified immunity, which Jackson does not challenge on appeal. ... Accordingly, Jackson has identified no reversible error in the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b).

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force claim should, to the extent possible, be assessed based on each defendant’s specific conduct.

I-Kiem Smith v. J Price · filed 2015-04-21

Although, as noted, the video evidence is not entirely clear, the District Court should, to the extent possible, analyze the specific conduct of each defendant in its qualified immunity analysis, rather than the defendants as a whole.

Section 1983 authorizes a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity for officials.

Hartrim v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2015-04-24

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers, Ferrante and Delaria (collectively, “Officers”), appeal from the district court’s order denying their ... motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Jerry Hartrim. ... Thus, the district court did not err in denying the Officers’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against public officials whose conduct under color of state law violates a constitutional right, subject to qualified immunity.

Chacon v. Copeland · filed 2015-04-30

“To overcome Rose’s qualified immunity claim, Chacon was required to show (1) an injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable. ... Viewed in the light most favorable to Chacon, the Court finds the evidence before the jury was such that reasonable and impartial minds could have found the force Officer Rose used in arresting Cha-con was clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable.”

Section 1983 provides a civil action for deprivation of constitutional or statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law.

Estate of Ronald E. Johnson v. Weber · filed 2015-05-04

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action for damages unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.

Section 1983 allows damages claims against government officials for violating clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Graham v. Gagnon · filed 2015-05-06

Qualified immunity, an affirmative defense to a § 1983 action, shields government officials from liability for damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 civil damages claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity when the alleged right was not clearly established.

Ziesmer v. Hagen · filed 2015-05-11

Government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages so long as they did not violate a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity unless the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Hausch v. Ecklond · filed 2015-05-15

Even if the individual appellees entered the premises unlawfully, in the circumstances presented they would still be protected by qualified immunity. “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.”

Section 1983 authorizes a civil action for damages against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another of federal rights.

Merricks v. Adkisson · filed 2015-05-15

Plaintiff Sarita Merricks sued Adkisson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries she suffered from his alleged use of excessive force during a traffic stop and search of her car. At all times relevant to this case, Adkisson acted within his discretionary authority. After carefully reviewing the record and hearing arguments of counsel, we conclude that no clearly established law put Adkisson on notice that his conduct in stopping Merricks and searching her car violated her constitutional rights. Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse the district court’s ruling denying his motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 provides a civil action for constitutional deprivations, subject to qualified immunity when officials did not violate clearly established law.

Mikich v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2015-05-15

As to the second prong: we ask whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable social worker would be on notice that removing AM from her parents’ custody violated the law.

Section 1983 does not provide immunity from suit to private prison guards working for a nongovernmental entity.

Peña v. Greffet · filed 2015-05-16

Unlike traditional prison guards, however, Vallejos is not entitled to qualified immunity, because he works for CCA — a nongovernmental entity — and “private prison guards, unlike those who work directly for the government, do not enjoy immunity from suit in a § 1983 case.”

Section 1983 shields public officials from suit unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan · filed 2015-05-18

Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983 unless they have “violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Section 1983 permits civil damages claims against officials who, under color of law, deprive a person of federal rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Griffin v. Amatucci · filed 2015-05-19

Defendants Dr. Gerald Amatucci, a Regional Medical Director at the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Nancy Smith, a Nurse Administrator at Upstate Correctional Facility, appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in Donald Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. ... Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages “if his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights or if it would have been objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his conduct did not violate plaintiff’s rights.” ... Because Nurse Smith is entitled to qualified immunity we reverse the order of the district court as to her.

Section 1983 permits civil damages claims against government agents for constitutional violations, subject to qualified immunity.

Ussery v. Mansfield · filed 2015-05-19

The Supreme Court has explained that “the qualified-immunity defense shields government agents 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.” ... We undoubtedly have jurisdiction to review that purely legal conclusion. ... Accordingly, given our obligation to take the facts in the light most favorable to Ussery, we must conclude that the district court did not err in denying the officers’ summary judgment on Ussery’s excessive force claim.

Section 1983 claims may be subject to a defendant's qualified immunity defense.

Romero v. County of Washoe · filed 2015-05-19

Appellants Diana Mann and Julie Brandt appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss Leticia Romero’s claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity. ... Where a defendant presents a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “dismissal is not appropriate unless we can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity applies.” ... The district court properly denied their motion to dismiss with leave to pursue their qualified immunity defense at summary judgment.

Section 1983 claims are subject to qualified immunity unless officials violate clearly established rights.

Singleton v. Darby · filed 2015-05-21

The qualified immunity doctrine, “even on summary judgment, ‘gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ ”

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent clearly establishes that their specific conduct violates a constitutional right.

Matson v. Hrabe · filed 2015-05-22

We are not aware of any binding case law predating the transfer that would put every reasonable officer on notice that such a transfer would be considered sufficiently chilling to establish a constitutional violation. ... And Mr. Matson has failed to show that right was clearly established at the time of the transfer.

Section 1983 permits a person to sue for violations of federal rights by state actors, subject to qualified immunity.

Oliver v. Greene · filed 2015-05-27

Under this version of the facts, Greene did subject Oliver to excessive force and, correspondingly, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 provides a civil claim against public officers who violate constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity when the right was not clearly established.

Weinmann v. McClone · filed 2015-05-27

When public officers violate the constitutional rights of citizens, section 1983 provides the vehicle for a legal claim. ... One possible affirmative defense, however, is qualified immunity. This is a doctrine that protects government officials “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 claims may be barred by qualified immunity when defendants reasonably mistake the law or facts.

Portnoy v. County of Yolo · filed 2015-05-27

Sergei Portnoy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from his detention in county jail. ... We affirm. ... The district court properly dismissed Portnoy’s Fourth Amendment claim related to his probable cause determination, because the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on a reasonable belief that a judge had made a positive finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest.

Section 1983 permits claims against individual state officers and provides qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established.

Mucha v. Jackson · filed 2015-05-27

The plaintiff charged two Milwaukee police officers (a captain and a lieutenant) with having detained him without a warrant or other justification, in violation of the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to state ... action by interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and in turn to acts of individual state officers by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... A police officer is not liable for damages caused by his official acts unless the unlawfulness of the acts is clearly established in law. ... They were not violating any clearly established law, whether constitutional or statutory, federal or state.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest was lawful; evidence of a mistake alone is insufficient.

New v. Denver · filed 2015-05-29

More than evidence of a mistake is required to deny a public official qualified immunity from § 1983 damage liability.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity when officials’ conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Wilson v. Ryan · filed 2015-05-29

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law.

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

Taylor v. Barkes · filed 2015-06-01

Because, at the very least, petitioners were not contraven- ing clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff who fails to develop a clearly established right argument on appeal waives it, leaving the defendant entitled to qualified immunity.

Ornelas v. Lovewell · filed 2015-06-01

Because we find that Ornelas has waived his argument before us that Trooper Lovewell violated a clearly established right, we agree that Trooper Lovewell was entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged facts show they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Martinez v. Mares · filed 2015-06-02

Accordingly, the Officers are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because, if the disputed facts are as Mr. and Ms. Martinez allege them to be, the Officers violated Mr. Martinez’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Browder Ex Rel. Estate of Browder v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2015-06-02

Now Lindsay and her parents have brought this civil suit seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sergeant Casaus asked the district court to dismiss the Browders’ complaint on grounds of qualified immunity. The district court declined that relief and so do we.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for an officer in a warrantless-arrest claim if a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Valencia v. De Luca · filed 2015-06-02

“When a warrantless arrest is the subject of a § 1983 action, the arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to make the arrest.”

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when, under the plaintiff’s version of the facts, no reasonable officer could believe the detention was lawful.

Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2015-06-02

Under the facts as presented by Goodman, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to state a plausible constitutional violation.

Doe v. Salisbury University · filed 2015-06-02

Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for the violation of a constitutional right, and so Defendants, are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff’s account shows unreasonable force during a seizure.

Howard v. City of Greensboro, Alabama · filed 2015-06-03

Under Howard’s version of events, Hudson was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields a § 1983 defendant from damages when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Onstad v. Hobbs · filed 2015-06-05

Finally, we conclude that defendant Danny Burl--the only defendant Onstad directly implicated in his constant-illumination claim--is entitled to qualified immunity as to that claim.

In a § 1983 suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating qualified immunity when the officers acted within their discretionary authority.

Windsor v. Eaves · filed 2015-06-05

Because Windsor admits that the deputies were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority when they arrested him, the burden is on him to show that qualified immunity does not apply.

Qualified immunity does not apply when officials are sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief rather than damages.

Susan Mills v. Garcia · filed 2015-06-08

Because Mills sues the UT-Brownsville officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief—rather than damages—there is no qualified-immunity issue.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Morrison v. City of Atlanta · filed 2015-06-09

Morrison fails to overcome her burden to show that Officer Boyd is not entitled to qualified immunity under these circumstances.

Section 1983 individual-capacity claims against an official are barred by qualified immunity when the alleged acts do not violate a clearly established federal right.

Bloomingburg Jewish Education Center v. Village of Bloomingburg · filed 2015-06-09

Thus, Herrmann is not alleged to have violated a clearly established federal right, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity from suit. The live claims against him in his individual capacity (but not those against him in his official capacity) must accordingly be dismissed.

Officials sued under Section 1983 lack qualified immunity for retaliating against police officers whose speech about serious law enforcement misconduct was clearly protected at the time.

Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, North Caro · filed 2015-06-15

In sum, “it was clearly established in the law of this Circuit” in December 2011 that speech about “serious misconduct in a law enforcement agency[] is protected.” Durham, 737 F.3d at 303–04. The district court therefore did not err in denying qualified immunity to Cook and Bralley on this basis.

An officer is protected from § 1983 damages by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established right.

Mitchell v. Miller · filed 2015-06-15

Because this case is not materially different from that of Brosseau, and in the absence of any subsequent contravening ... authority, Mitchell has failed to demonstrate that it was clearly established that Miller's conduct was constitutionally unreasonable in these circumstances. We hold that Miller is protected by qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show a constitutional violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity.

Letterman v. Farnsworth · filed 2015-06-16

To survive a challenge based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show the defendants violated a person's ... constitutional right and the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

A public official sued in her individual capacity under Section 1983 may receive qualified immunity when the claimed right was not clearly established.

Brooks v. Farmington Municipal Schools · filed 2015-06-16

Accordingly, we conclude Ryan was entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims asserted against her in her individual capacity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when the evidence could allow a jury to find that the officer used deadly force without an imminent threat.

Flythe Ex Rel. Estate of Flythe v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-06-19

This shield, however, is not impenetrable, for officers enjoy no protection for violations of clearly established constitutional rights. ... Accordingly, whether Eagan acted reasonably does turn on whether, as he alleges, Flythe attacked him with a knife. ... We shall therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Eagan.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for detention when they had arguable probable cause to believe the person committed a crime.

Ransom v. Grisafe · filed 2015-06-22

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity if there was “arguable probable cause” to detain Ransom when they transported him to police headquarters for questioning. That is, the officers are immune from suit if they had “a mistaken but objectively reasonable belief” that Ransom had committed a criminal offense.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison guard from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim merely because the alleged abuser was not the guard’s subordinate.

Castillo v. Day · filed 2015-06-22

Accordingly, we reject Pavliska’s argument that a prison guard who knows of, yet fails to reasonably respond to, a risk of harm created by another guard can only be liable if the perpetrator is a subordinate.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim against an officer who shoots an unarmed person posing no immediate threat when clearly established law would have made the violation apparent to a reasonable officer.

King v. Hill · filed 2015-06-24

We conclude that, taken together, Garner, Zuchel, Zia, and Walker clearly establish that a reasonable officer in Deputy Hill’s circumstances would have understood that shooting Mr. King was unconstitutional deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court therefore correctly denied Deputy Hill’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the facts known at the time of arrest establish probable cause.

Harvey v. Carr · filed 2015-06-25

Carr is entitled to qualified immunity from Harvey’s false-arrest claim unless he lacked probable cause to arrest Harvey. ... But even the undisputed facts establish probable cause.

Officials facing a § 1983 claim are not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts viewed in the plaintiff’s favor show that they violated a clearly established right.

Jones v. Williams · filed 2015-06-26

In sum, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Jones, Appellees’ conduct violated Jones’s clearly established right to avoid handling pork on the basis of his religious beliefs. On this record, Appellees are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for failing to stop another officer’s excessive force has qualified immunity when the duty to intervene was not clearly established in the circumstances he faced.

Robinson v. Condley · filed 2015-06-29

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we cannot say Trooper Condley's duty to intervene was clearly established in the specific context of this case. Because Trooper Condley's conduct was arguably reasonable in light of the circumstances, he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Government officials sued under Section 1983 may claim qualified immunity if the federal right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Pelletier v. Lewiston Auburn Water Pollution Control Authority · filed 2015-06-30

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity, however, even if there has been a violation of a federal right, if the right was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation. ... Accordingly, the court cannot conclude on this record that the right was not "clearly established."

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted federal right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Jamison v. Fischer · filed 2015-06-30

Accordingly, existing precedent did not place the constitutional question “beyond debate,” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083, and we therefore identify no error in the district court’s conclusion that Tokarz was entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim for warrantless home entry when clearly established law gives fair notice that the circumstances provide no exigency.

McInerney v. King · filed 2015-06-30

Simply put, Officer King had fair notice that his conduct in entering Ms. McInerney’s house without a warrant was unlawful. Moreover, based on the existing case law at the time of Officer King’s warrantless entry – both those cases finding exigent circumstances and those holding such circumstances were not present – it was clearly established that the circumstances he confronted did not constitute exigent circumstances. Finally, it was clearly established that officers may not create exigent circumstances to justify their actions. Thus, the district court erred in granting Officer King summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim requires considering whether the plaintiff established a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established at the time.

Bacon v. Wood · filed 2015-07-01

“Our qualified immunity analysis typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

In a § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim, a material factual dispute about the alleged violation precludes summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Kuhne v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2015-07-02

We have held that where, as here, “the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged or shown a material dispute of fact as to an [Eighth Amendment] claim, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Bowden v. Stokely, 576 F. App’x 951, 955 (11th Cir. 2014). The defendants can, of course, continue to pursue their qualified immunity claims at trial.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows that they violated a clearly established right.

Davis v. Wessel · filed 2015-07-07

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “[p]ublic officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged con- duct.” ... The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Davis demonstrates that Wessel and Lay violated the clearly established law governing substantive due process claims for excessive use of restraints.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff identifies a violation of an established constitutional interest.

White v. Irwin · filed 2015-07-08

Defendant’s qualified immunity defense is not sufficient to dismiss this claim because plaintiff identified a violation of an established constitutional interest.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison official from a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim merely because some evidence supported the reported misconduct or an unbiased hearing officer imposed discipline.

Taylor v. Unknown Botkins · filed 2015-07-09

Thus, we reject Botkin’s legal arguments with respect to Taylor’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s determination that Botkin was not entitled to qualified immunity and dismiss the remainder of Botkin’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A court can resolve qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim by deciding whether the alleged facts establish a constitutional violation, without reaching whether the right was clearly established.

Anzaldua v. Northeast Ambulance & Fire Protection District · filed 2015-07-10

The two prongs of our qualified immunity analysis require us to answer (1) whether the facts alleged demonstrate a violation of the employee’s constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the employee’s firing. ... This case can be resolved solely under the first prong.

In a Section 1983 suit, qualified immunity must be assessed separately for each defendant based on that defendant’s own conduct.

Booker v. Lapaglia · filed 2015-07-10

While this is an accurate statement of law, it does not negate the need for an individualized inquiry as to Shelton’s involvement in the search.

An officer performing discretionary duties is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Landsman v. Officer Fletcher McClellan · filed 2015-07-10

As such, the burden shifts to Landsman to establish that McClellan is not entitled to qualified immunity by showing that the facts alleged by Landsman make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the alleged ... constitutional right was clearly established at the time of McClellan’s conduct. See Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1329. We find that Landsman met her burden here.

In a § 1983 false arrest claim, disputed facts about whether a reasonable officer could believe the arrest was lawful can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Simpson v. City of New York · filed 2015-07-15

Because the facts bearing on whether Officer Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity are in dispute, the grant of summary judgment on that basis is vacated.

A § 1983 claim against officers cannot overcome qualified immunity when the complaint fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Bosarge v. Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics · filed 2015-07-15

Because a reasonable mistake does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, Bosarge fails to state a claim. The agents are entitled to qualified immunity, and we need not decide their claim of absolute immunity under Rehberg.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 suit unless the officer violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2015-07-17

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1774 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ... Consequently, Mrs. Fox has not shown that Officer Boyd violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment right when he ordered her to get out of the car and put her hands on the hood during her husband’s traffic stop.

Officials sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when there is no constitutional violation.

Lempar v. Livingston · filed 2015-07-17

As there is no evidence of a constitutional violation, we uphold the district court’s determination that those appellees sued in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged conduct plainly violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Gaymon v. Borough of Collingdale · filed 2015-07-17

Therefore, qualified immunity is not a viable defense at this preliminary stage.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officers could disagree about whether the defendant’s conduct was unconstitutional.

Ross v. City of N.Y. · filed 2015-07-20

At minimum, reasonable correction officers could have disagreed as to the constitutionality of the conduct attributed to Mullings. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). Accordingly, defendant Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when reasonable officers could have disagreed about whether the conduct was unconstitutional.

Ross v. Correction Officers John & Jane Does 1-5 · filed 2015-07-20

At minimum, reasonable correction officers could have disagreed as to the constitutionality of the conduct attributed to Mullings. ... Accordingly, defendant Mullings is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a corrected warrant affidavit still supports probable cause for an arrest.

Copeland v. Lucas Wicks · filed 2015-07-21

Under the facts here, as there was no Fourth Amendment violation, Detective was entitled to qualified immunity on Mother’s §1983 claim.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable person would have known.

Jensen v. Jessamy · filed 2015-07-21

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." ... As determined above, probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff and, accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed these claims against the individual Defendants.

In a Section 1983 suit, once an officer shows that he acted within his discretionary authority, the plaintiff must rebut qualified immunity by showing that the officer violated clearly established law.

Terrance Woods v. Keiffer · filed 2015-07-22

Kiefer properly supported his summary judgment motion with an affidavit establishing “that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority” in evicting Woods pursuant to a writ of possession. Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo County, 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This shifted the summary judgment burden to Woods, who was required to rebut the qualified immunity defense by showing that Kiefer’s “conduct violated clearly established law.”

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable officer with the same knowledge could have believed there was probable cause to arrest.

STEPHENS Et Al. v. ZIMMERMAN · filed 2015-07-23

As outlined in Division 1, given the information before her at the time of the arrest, we cannot say that no reasonable officer in the same circumstances and with the same knowledge Stephens possessed could have believed he or she had probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

Qualified immunity bars damages under § 1983 when a reasonable officer could believe her conduct was lawful under the law at the time.

Arden v. McIntosh · filed 2015-07-23

Therefore, we conclude that a reasonable officer could believe that she was authorized to remove the firearms temporarily. This is sufficient to establish Deputy Bondell’s qualified-immunity defense as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from damages in § 1983 actions unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.

Robbins v. Randy Becker, Sr. · filed 2015-07-27

“Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability and the burdens of litigation in a § 1983 action for damages unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official would have known.” ... To survive summary judgment, the Robbinses must present sufficient facts, viewed in their favor, to show each “officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” ... The Robbinses have not done that.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an officer who uses an aggressive takedown against a secured, compliant suspect.

Dominguez v. Abreu · filed 2015-07-27

Our case law does not support extending qualified immunity where the level of force used against a secured, compliant suspect was analogous to the aggressive takedown that occurred here.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have understood that their conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Blackburn v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2015-07-27

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because, at the time they acted, it would not have been clear to a reasonable official that avoiding the assignment of African-American employees to care for a particular violent patient, when done temporarily in response to an imminent safety threat posed by the patient to African-American staff, violated the Equal Protection Clause.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, permits a reasonable jury to find excessive force.

Ramirez v. Judd · filed 2015-07-28

Defendant Burgess, an officer in the Polk County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office, contends that the District Court erred in denying him qualified immunity as to plaintiff Carlos Ramirez’s claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Burgess used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment 1 in arresting him on the night of July 28, 2010. We disagree. Taking the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to Ramirez, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Burgess used excessive force as Ramirez contends.

In a § 1983 claim against an official who invokes qualified immunity, the court asks whether the plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established at the time.

Estate of Wilbert Lee Henson v. Cou · filed 2015-07-28

Confronted with a claim of qualified immunity, this court must determine whether the Plaintiffs allege the deprivation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Section 1983 defendants sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a clearly established substantive due process right under the alleged circumstances.

Moore v. University of Kansas · filed 2015-07-28

Having failed to establish the contours of a substantive due process right under the alleged circumstances here, the court dismisses this claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities based on qualified immunity.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer could have believed the plaintiff posed a threat.

Dunklin v. Mallinger · filed 2015-08-03

With respect to immunity, the issue is whether a reasonable officer would have known that the force was excessive. ... Given the refusal of Dunklin to surrender the weapon and the threatening manner in which he was moving just before the shots were fired, we agree with the district court that a reasonable officer could have believed Dunklin constituted a threat. ... The officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 excessive force suit, disputed material facts about whether officers violated the plaintiff’s rights can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Santini v. Fuentes · filed 2015-08-04

For the reasons detailed below, we find that while the District Court stated the appropriate test to determine qualified immunity, it failed to properly construe all facts and inferences in Santini’s favor. As our analysis below shows, when all facts and inferences are taken in Santini’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could find that Santini’s constitutional rights were violated. Therefore, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on that issue was inappropriate.

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

Chavis v. Borden · filed 2015-08-04

“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 established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... Thus, Chavis’s claim does not satisfy the “clearly established law” element, so Borden is entitled to qualified immunity.

An official asserting qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit bears the burden of proof and persuasion on that defense.

Harrison v. Owens · filed 2015-08-05

The burden of proof and persuasion, with respect to a defense of qualified immunity, rests on the official asserting that defense.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when their arrest warrant applications support a reasonable belief that probable cause exists.

Cahaly v. Paul LaRosa, III · filed 2015-08-06

Consequently, we affirm the district court’s judgment that LaRosa and Lloyd are entitled to qualified immunity.

Police officers sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known.

Ellison Ex Rel. Estate of Ellison v. Lesher · filed 2015-08-06

Qualified immunity shields police officers from suit in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest when the officer had arguable probable cause, even if the officer was mistaken about the suspect’s conduct.

D.Z. Ex Rel. Thompson v. Buell · filed 2015-08-06

Since we find that Buell reasonably believed, based on the behavior he observed, that D.Z. was trying to evade the police, Buell is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Rhein v. Coffman · filed 2015-08-06

Given the state of the law, Coffman was neither plainly incompetent nor a knowing violator of the law, and thus he is entitled to qualified immunity on the post-deprivation claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 retaliation claim on the ground that the rule protecting speech outside a public employee’s job duties was unclear.

David Jerri, Jr. v. Harran · filed 2015-08-10

The law governing the narrow issue before us—whether, assuming all the other elements of a First Amendment claim are satisfied, speech made as a citizen is protected—is clearly established, hence rendering qualified immunity inappropriate.

Once a defendant establishes that he was exercising discretionary authority, the plaintiff must show a constitutional violation of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit.

Stephens v. Lin · filed 2015-08-11

The burden, therefore, is on Stephens to prove that he suffered a constitutional violation and that the constitutional right ... violated was clearly established when the challenged incident occurred.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Small Ex Rel. R.G. v. City of Alexandria · filed 2015-08-12

Because no record evidence calls into question ... Fairbanks’s testimony about Goss’s behavior immediately prior to the shooting, Small has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Fairbanks violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, Fairbanks is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when he has no reasonable basis to believe an arrest is authorized.

Demuth v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2015-08-14

Having no reasonable basis for believing he was authorized to arrest Demuth, Li is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of clearly established law.

Yessin v. Officer Joseph Reese · filed 2015-08-17

The Plaintiff has not met his burden in establishing that the Defendants violated clearly established law. Thus, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against officers who enter a home and arrest its occupant without a warrant or exigent circumstances when the right was clearly established.

Morse v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety Department of State Police · filed 2015-08-18

Viewing the facts from the record in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, no reasonable law enforcement officer would have understood the warrantless entry and arrest of Charles Morse to comport with the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds that the law enforcement officials who effected ’the warrantless entry and arrest — Defendants Cloutier, Fortier, Bateman, Obuchowski and Maher — are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff’s evidence could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Godawa v. Byrd · filed 2015-08-19

Under Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, a reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant’s use of deadly force violated Godawa’s clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment, and the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Defendant.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 false arrest claim when officers could reasonably believe probable cause existed, even if it did not.

Brown v. City of New York · filed 2015-08-19

Those circumstances entitled the arresting officers to the defense of qualified immunity.

A defendant in a § 1983 case has qualified immunity if the defendant did not violate the asserted constitutional right or if that right was not clearly established at the time.

Strickland v. Jabe · filed 2015-08-19

Consequently, a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 case if (1) his or her conduct did not violate the constitutional right at issue or (2) the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

An arrest that violates state law does not, by itself, defeat qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the officer had arguable probable cause.

Pruitt v. Deputy Kristen Gillespie · filed 2015-08-20

The district court correctly reasoned that the mere fact that Gillespie arrested Pruitt for misdemeanors that did not occur in her presence might have violated Alabama statutory arrest procedures, but, without more, did not defeat her qualified immunity defense based on her having arguable probable cause to arrest Pruitt.

An officer sued under § 1983 may be denied summary judgment on qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s supported facts show a violation of clearly established rights and objectively unreasonable conduct.

Joseph Barber, Jr. v. Glover · filed 2015-08-21

Accordingly, assuming the truth of Plaintiffs’ evidence, as we must at this stage, this evidence is sufficient to preclude summary judgment based on Mogavero’s claim of qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful-entry claim when the entry violates clearly established law.

Attocknie Ex Rel. M.P. v. Smith · filed 2015-08-24

Cherry’s entry of Aaron’s home was clearly contrary to well-established law. He is not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful entry.

A § 1983 false arrest claim against an officer survives summary judgment when a genuine factual dispute over probable cause prevents the court from granting qualified immunity.

Greene v. Shegan · filed 2015-08-24

Because there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Shegan had probable cause to arrest Greene for violating 18 DCMR § 2000.2, summary judgment on Greene’s § 1983 and false arrest/false imprisonment claims was not warranted.

Qualified immunity does not defeat a Section 1983 excessive force claim when, on the facts the court must accept, an officer slams a handcuffed and subdued person into a wall.

Curran v. Aleshire · filed 2015-08-25

And under Curran’s version of events, she was handcuffed and subdued when Aleshire pushed her into the wall outside the disciplinarian’s office—making this an obvious case of excessive force sufficient to defeat Aleshire’s claim of qualified immunity.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity for excessively forceful handcuffing when the detainee complained that the cuffs were too tight, the officer ignored the complaint, and the detainee suffered an injury.

Muhammad al-Lamadani v. Lang · filed 2015-08-26

Such a claim survives summary judgment when there is adequate evidence to create a factual dispute that: (1) the plaintiff complained that the cuffs were too tight; (2) the officer ignored the complaint; and (3) the plaintiff suffered some physical injury as a consequence of the cuffing.

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established when they acted.

Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2015-08-26

Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. ... The law clearly established, well before the events in these cases, that police officers were bound by Brady and that the evidence allegedly withheld in these cases fell within Brady’s scope. We therefore affirm the denial of qualified immunity in both cases and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from § 1983 liability for search, seizure, and excessive force claims, but not for force used after a person is subdued and ceases resisting.

Carroll v. Harris County · filed 2015-08-26

We then agree with the deputies that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful-search-and-seizure claims and on most of the excessive-force claims, but not as to the excessive-force claims for the deputies’ use of force after Barnes was subdued and ceased resisting.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable official would not have known the conduct violated the asserted right.

Blackburn v. Wa Dept of Social & Health Svc · filed 2015-08-31

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because, at the time they acted, it would not have been clear to a reasonable official that avoiding the assignment of African-American employees to care for a particular violent patient, when done temporarily in response to an imminent safety threat posed by the patient to African-American staff, violated the Equal Protection Clause.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Mica Spady v. Bethlehem Area School District · filed 2015-09-01

Spady filed suit against Rodgers and the Bethlehem Area School District (“BASD”), claiming violations of her son’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rodgers moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the District Court denied. Because we agree with Rodgers’s contention on appeal that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, we will reverse the District Court’s order denying summary judgment with instructions to grant summary judgment in Rodgers’s favor.

An officer sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity from an unlawful arrest claim if a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Hernandez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2015-09-01

In a qualified immunity case, however, this analysis shifts to accommodate the retrospective deference inherent in Section 1983, such that the Court must evaluate “whether a defendant ■ violated clearly established law by asking whether there was arguable probable cause for the challenged conduct.” ... There is no doubt that Hernandez’s arrest was sustained by arguable probable cause.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when their belief that the arrest was lawful was objectively reasonable.

Akinnagbe v. City of New York · filed 2015-09-01

For the foregoing reasons, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs’ claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Edwards v. High Desert State Prison · filed 2015-09-02

Edwards’s search involved far different circumstances and occurred in 2009, when the constitutionality of occasional cross-gender observation of searches was not clearly established. The female guard is therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

Qualified immunity shields officials from a § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Hollingsworth v. City of St. Ann · filed 2015-09-03

In § 1983 actions, qualified immunity shields government officials from suit unless their conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. ... The law was not materially different in July 2009, so McCallum is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison official from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established Eighth Amendment right.

Brooks v. Warden · filed 2015-09-03

Ultimately, we conclude that Brooks has adequately pled a § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim, and that Powell is not protected by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the alleged unlawfulness would not have been clear to every reasonable official in the defendants’ positions.

Williams v. Stolar · filed 2015-09-04

Summary judgment was properly granted to Stolar and Fisher because they were entitled to qualified immunity, as it would not have been clear to every reasonable social worker and police officer that the removal of Williams’s minor son was unlawful under the circumstances presented.

A supervisor sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from a jail-suicide claim when clearly established law did not put him on notice of liability without knowledge, by him or identified staff, of the inmate’s substantial risk of suicide.

Cox v. Glanz · filed 2015-09-08

We specifically base our decision to reverse on our determination infra that the then-extant clearly established law would not have put a jail administrator similarly situated to Sheriff Glanz on notice that he could be held liable under § 1983 for an Eighth Amendment violation based on a prisoner’s suicide where, as here, neither he nor any identified staff member whom he supervised possessed knowledge that the particular inmate who committed suicide presented a substantial risk of taking his own life.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when existing law clearly established that their use of force was unreasonable.

Kingsley v. Hendrickson · filed 2015-09-08

In § 1983 actions, “[q]ualified 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.” ... As we have noted, however, the law clearly ... established that the amount of force had to be reasonable in light of the legitimate objectives of the institution.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing their conduct was not clearly established at the time.

Acre v. Chambers · filed 2015-09-08

Because the court concludes that the law governing the officers’ conduct was not clearly established on March 19, 2013, the court addresses only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false-arrest claim when no reasonable officer could believe there was probable cause to arrest.

Wilkerson v. Seymour · filed 2015-09-10

The question in this appeal is whether DeKalb County police officer Thedious Seymour (“Officer Seymour”) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ... on the basis of qualified immunity, following a jury verdict in favor of Monique Wilkerson on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that she was falsely arrested without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that he is not entitled to qualified immunity and therefore affirm.

A police officer may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim.

Daniels v. Tyler · filed 2015-09-10

After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Daniels, see Laganiere v. Cty. of Olmsted, 772 F.3d 1114, 1116 (8th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity, see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989); Crumley v. City of St. Paul, 324 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2003), and statutory immunity, see Iowa Code § 804.8(1); Johnson v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 352 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1984).

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Byrd v. City of Bossier · filed 2015-09-10

Byrd has offered no clearly established law indicating that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he loses control of his canine, which proceeds to injure a suspect. ... Accordingly, the district court properly granted qualified immunity to Officer Yarborough.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit must show that the officer violated a federal right that was clearly established when the officer acted.

Murphy v. Demings · filed 2015-09-11

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show both that Deputy Caron violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established when Deputy Caron acted. See id. ... And we are highly confident that Deputy Caron -- given the circumstances -- violated no clearly-established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. As a matter of law, Deputy Caron is entitled to summary judgment.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Webb v. Brawn · filed 2015-09-14

Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and granting summary judgment on that basis.

In a § 1983 suit, a government official acting within discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Moore v. Pederson · filed 2015-09-16

But because the law on this point was not clearly established in this Circuit before our decision today, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds to Defendant-Appellee Deputy Kevin Pederson, who reached into Plaintiff-Appellant Elvan Moore’s home to arrest and handcuff him when, in the course of what Pederson described as a Terry stop, Moore declined to identify ... himself in response to Pederson’s questioning.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the conduct, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, was unreasonable under clearly established law.

Doss v. Young · filed 2015-09-18

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Helpenstell on Doss’s § 1983 claim of excessive force.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officials would not have understood that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

McGunigle v. City of Quincy · filed 2015-09-18

Even if there were a constitutional violation, Keenan and Doug-an would be entitled to qualified immunity, because objectively reasonable officials would not have understood under the circumstances that the conduct at issue could have violated McGunigle’s constitutional right to free speech.

Qualified immunity protects officers from individual liability under Section 1983 when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established in the circumstances.

Martin v. County of Santa Fe · filed 2015-09-22

Because Martin cites to no cases, and we have found none, placing the constitutional implications of Defendants’ conduct here “beyond debate,” al–Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083, we conclude that Martin failed to satisfy the second prong of the qualified- immunity inquiry. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on this claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.

Hargraves v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-09-22

In light of the officers’ testimony regarding their good faith belief regarding the use of force employed, ... and the discussion, supra Part III.A.2, that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity, under § 1983, due to their use of a reasonable, rather than an excessive, amount of force in the circumstances, their actions were privileged and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on this claim.

A prison superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for delaying approval of an inmate’s marriage when the right to prompt approval was not clearly established.

Miller v. Wenerowicz · filed 2015-09-22

The right of an inmate to a prompt marriage is not so clearly established that Defendant, as superintendent of a prison, would reasonably believe that delaying approval of Plaintiffs’ marriage request for the reasons noted above would violate the Constitution. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Linden v. Piotrowski · filed 2015-09-24

In the context of this case, none of the plaintiff’s asserted constitutional rights was clearly established. We need not go further: this conclusion is enough for us to reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant officers, who are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 false arrest claim when a genuine factual dispute remains over probable cause.

McGrath v. Town of Sandwich · filed 2015-09-29

Ty has a credible claim that Officer Bon-darek lacked probable cause to believe that Ty committed felony assault. Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact over whether Officer Bondarek’s actions violated Ty’s constitutional rights. The Court declines to conclude, as a matter of law, that Officer Bondarek had qualified immunity or that Ty’s claim is without substance. Accordingly, Officer Bondarek’s motion for summary judgment on Count 1 will be denied.

When an official invokes qualified immunity at summary judgment in a Section 1983 suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the official is not entitled to it.

Cleveland v. Liberty County Sheriff's Department · filed 2015-09-30

Where, as here, a defendant invokes qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when there was at least arguable probable cause to initiate proceedings.

Deanda v. Hicks · filed 2015-09-30

In short, because there was at least arguable probable cause, the Court grants summary judgment as to the malicious prosecution claim on qualified immunity grounds.

Government officials sued under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity, which the plaintiff must overcome by showing a violation of a clearly established right.

Welch v. Spaulding · filed 2015-09-30

Government officials are typically immune from civil liability under § 1983, and may assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to charges under the statute. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defendant officials are not entitled to immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time.

Dixon v. City of Somersworth, et al. · filed 2015-10-05

In sum, because Dixon has not carried his burden of identifying any legal authority that would have put Officer McCarthy on notice that using a taser on him violated the Fourth Amendment, McCarthy is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity and to judgment as a matter of law on the only claim that remains in this case.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, supports a violation of clearly established law.

Tenorio v. Pitzer · filed 2015-10-06

We conclude that the district court, given its unreviewable assessment of the evidence, did not err in denying the qualified-immunity motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would have understood that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Gilhaus v. Gardner Edgerton Unified School District No. 231 · filed 2015-10-06

Under these circumstances, any reasonable official would have understood that voting to terminate Gilhaus without due process would violate his constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Gilhaus’ due process property interest claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable disagreement among judges shows that the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Smith v. Schwarzenegger · filed 2015-10-07

Given this obvious, legitimate, and reasonable disagreement among judges, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim, regardless of how its underlying constitutional right is defined.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Morabito ex rel. Estate of Morabito v. Holmes · filed 2015-10-07

Qualified immunity for Defendants on the federal use-of-force claim is appropriate unless (1) Defendants violated Morabi-to’s constitutional rights, and (2) at the time of the actions those constitutional rights were clearly established.

Section 1983 defendants are protected by qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have known that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Salau v. Denton · filed 2015-10-08

A reasonable person in Defendants’ positions would have no reason to believe that any of the actions taken with regard to the disciplinary process deprived Plaintiff of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. Accordingly, Defendants are protected from liability by qualified immunity and the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment Due Process claim.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when no reasonable jury could find that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Burton v. Downey · filed 2015-10-08

Because no reasonable jury could find that defendants’ conduct violated Burton’s constitutional rights, the medical and non-medical defendants were entitled to invoke the defense of qualified immunity, and the district court’s decision denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment is REVERSED and the case Remanded for entry of judgment for the defendants.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Fanti v. Weinstock · filed 2015-10-09

As government officials, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims for damages unless (1) the facts alleged show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. ... Appellants therefore prevail on their qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim when the law governing the challenged conduct was not clearly established at the time.

Moore v. Pederson · filed 2015-10-15

Because the law was not clearly established until today that Pederson lacked probable cause to arrest Moore since he could not conduct a Terry-like stop in the home absent exigent circumstances, and further, because the law was not clearly established until today that Moore’s actions in acquiescing to Pederson’s instructions did not amount to consent to enter the home, the district court properly granted Pederson qualified immunity.

Officers sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a warrant is not so obviously deficient that a reasonable officer would recognize the defect.

Rathbun v. Montoya · filed 2015-10-16

We conclude that the warrant in this case “was not so obviously lacking in [particularity] that the officers can be considered plainly incompetent for concluding otherwise.”

An officer who has probable cause to arrest is entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest claim under § 1983.

Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission v. Jeffrey · filed 2015-10-20

Accordingly, because Officer Johnson had probable cause to arrest Respondent, he was entitled to qualified immunity from the false arrest claim asserted by Respondent under § 1983, and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying his motion for summary judgment on that claim.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity when reasonable officials would not have known their conduct violated clearly established law.

Lawson v. Gregg · filed 2015-10-20

Accordingly, even though Defendants violated Mr. Lawson’s constitutional rights, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in entering the home because reasonable officials would not have realized they were violating the law.

Qualified immunity can support judgment for defendants on § 1983 claims.

Young Ex Rel. Estate of Scott v. Borders · filed 2015-10-21

We echo the district court’s expression of sympathy for the plaintiffs’ loss, but while the facts of this case are tragic, we can find no reversible error in the district court’s ultimate qualified immunity rulings.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 false-arrest claim when officers had probable cause to make the arrest.

Shamir v. City of New York · filed 2015-10-22

We agree that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a defense to the claim of false arrest, but for reasons different than those articulated by the District Court.

Officials sued under Section 1983 may receive qualified immunity when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct did not violate an inmate’s rights.

Barnes v. Furman · filed 2015-10-22

We elect to do so and we agree that, on the record before us, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because it was objectively reasonable for them to believe, at the time, that their denial of kosher meals to an inmate who self-identified as a Hebrew Israelite did not violate the inmate’s rights.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 damages claim when prior decisions gave fair warning that their assistance in a private seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.

Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers · filed 2015-10-26

Consequently, we hold that our reasoning in prior cases was sufficient to provide Officers Piper and Gipson with fair warning that their actions violated the Middaughs’ Fourth Amendment rights. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that the Middaughs’ Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established.