42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 provides a civil action against a person who, under color of state law, deprives another of federal rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Estrada v. John Healey, Jr. · filed 2016-04-27

Estrada then filed this § 1983 action against Hanna and Healey in their individual and official capacities in state court, which they timely removed to federal court. ... Although the facts alleged in the amended complaint are troubling, we hold that Healey and Hanna are entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore need not address Estrada’s arguments regarding absolute prosecutorial immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Section 1983 claims against officials in their individual capacities are barred by qualified immunity unless the conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Kimbriel v. City of Greenville Mississippi · filed 2016-04-28

An official sued in her individual capacity is immune from civil liability “to the extent that [her] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity, and an officer may proceed when the alleged force violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2016-04-28

Ariel Marantes appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ... “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Based on the facts in the amended complaint, Officer Giordano was not entitled to qualified immunity for repeatedly kicking Marantes after Officer Peart had him already restrained.

Section 1983 permits civil actions against state actors, subject to qualified immunity.

Mandisha Hart v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2016-04-29

To defeat Defendants’ qualified immunity on her judicial deception claim, Hart “must make (1) a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth, and (2) establish that but for the dishonesty, the challenged action would not have occurred.”

Section 1983 claims are subject to qualified immunity when officials could reasonably believe their conduct was lawful under clearly established law.

Connor v. Thompson · filed 2016-05-02

Our denial of summary judgment on Thompson’s qualified immunity defense necessarily entails our judgment that, on the required view of the facts, no reasonable officer could have believed Thompson’s conduct was lawful.

Section 1983 claims against officials are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Miller v. Wenerowicz · filed 2016-05-02

Even if a prison official’s restriction on the right to marry is unconstitutional under the Turner test, however, the official is immune from suit unless the right at issue was “clearly established.”

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity, which protects reasonable mistakes unless clearly established rights were violated.

Payne v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs. · filed 2016-05-03

Qualified immunity 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. ... Qualified immunity consists of two inquiries: (1) whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. ... Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity and the district court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

Section 1983 permits a claim for a warrantless arrest without probable cause that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Carter v. Filbeck · filed 2016-05-03

A warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment and forms a basis for a section 1983 claim. ... Because a reasonable officer should have known both that Plaintiffs were authorized to enter the Property and that they were authorized to remove its contents, Filbeck lacked even arguable probable cause for his arrests of Plaintiffs. ... Qualified immunity is neither appropriate nor available under these circumstances.

Section 1983 allows a person to sue for damages when a state actor violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, subject to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Dillard · filed 2016-05-05

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from suit under § 1983 unless (1) the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

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

Jotaynun Lee v. Bevington · filed 2016-05-05

Officials will receive immunity unless the § 1983 claim satisfies a two-prong test: (1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person would have known his acts or omissions violated that right.

Section 1983 claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that a statutory or constitutional right was violated and clearly established.

Martinez v. Nueces County, TX · filed 2016-05-06

We initially hold that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs’ warrantless entry claims. A public official will be granted qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows “(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.”

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

Estate of Perry v. Wenzel · filed 2016-05-06

The City and County Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity. “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 government actors, subject to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

King v. Evans · filed 2016-05-06

Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that Evans is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not give officers qualified immunity when the alleged facts show a detention that no reasonable officer would have found justified.

Goines v. Valley Community Services Board · filed 2016-05-09

In § 1983 actions, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity so long as they have not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... Because Goines’ complaint plausibly alleges facts that no reasonable officer would have found sufficient to justify an emergency mental-health detention, the complaint states a constitutional violation by the Officers for which they would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Novoselsky v. Brown · filed 2016-05-10

We turn next to Brown’s qualified immunity defense to Novoselsky’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. Qualified immunity protects government agents from liability for their actions so long as they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer who uses significant force against a nonresisting or passively resisting suspect when clearly established law permits only minimal force.

Becker v. Effriechs · filed 2016-05-12

Further, because it was clearly established at the time of Becker’s arrest that no more than minimal force was permissible to arrest a non-resisting, or passively resisting, suspect, Officer Elfreich was not entitled to qualified immunity on this record.

Qualified immunity protects defendants from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Lucas v. Otsego County Sheriff Richard J. Devlin Jr. · filed 2016-05-12

Thus, Supreme Court properly held that qualified immunity protected defendants from plaintiff's 42 USC § 1983 claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 warrantless entry claim when the law governing the entry was not clearly established at the time.

Martinez v. Nueces County, TX · filed 2016-05-12

We initially hold that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiffs’ warrantless entry claims.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Marie Sales v. City of Tustin · filed 2016-05-12

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity, because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officials when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Valdez v. Roybal · filed 2016-05-12

Because the law was not clearly established, however, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not justify summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when an inmate’s right to notice before rejection of his mail was clearly established.

Johnson v. United States · filed 2016-05-13

On these facts, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity to the defendants involved, because it was clearly established that an inmate had a procedural due process right to receive notice that his mail was being rejected.

In a Section 1983 suit, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment based on qualified immunity must show that the defendants violated a right that was clearly established when they acted.

McCoy v. Miller · filed 2016-05-16

To defeat summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that the defendants violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

A Section 1983 defendant receives qualified immunity when no prior case law clearly established that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Davis v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2016-05-17

To defeat qualified immunity, Davis must identify case law from before the time of the ... search that treated the ungated grounds surrounding an unoccupied house as curtilage that a government inspector could not enter for purposes of visual inspection. ... Davis has not identified a single case (nor can we) that applies Fourth Amendment protection to the unenclosed areas surrounding an unoccupied house and prohibits observations of its exterior from those areas.

A § 1983 claim against an individual defendant requires a sufficiently alleged constitutional violation involving a right that was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Huk v. County of Santa Barbara · filed 2016-05-17

Huk and Raff assert a violation of their substantive due process right not to suffer a deprivation of liberty based on fabricated evidence and false representations in child custody proceedings. This right was clearly established in 2010, at the time of defendants’ alleged unconstitutional conduct.

In a § 1983 suit against a police officer, qualified immunity can support summary judgment without deciding whether the officer violated the Constitution.

Glenda Smith v. City of Wyoming · filed 2016-05-18

If immunity applies, we may affirm summary judgment for the defendant officer on a claim without deciding whether a constitutional violation occurred.

Police officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when officers of reasonable competence could disagree about whether their conduct violated clearly established rights.

Davila v. City of New York · filed 2016-05-18

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the officers’ actions would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not protect defendants from a Section 1983 claim for denying insulin to a diabetic when clearly established law prohibits that conduct.

Waldrop v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorp · filed 2016-05-18

Waldrop also contends that the Wexford defendants are not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. He points out that clearly established law prohibits the ... defendants from denying insulin to a diabetic. The defendants have not persisted in that defense on appeal, nor do we think they could.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Trump Tight, LLC v. Bell · filed 2016-05-18

Accordingly, assuming Bell and Givens violated Trump’s constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment, Trump’s right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Thus, the Court grants the defendants’ motions to dismiss Trump’s Fourth Amendment, claim on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Davila v. Sheriff Logan Marshall · filed 2016-05-20

He has therefore not met his burden of showing that Marshall and Durden were not entitled to qualified immunity. The district court did not err in granting Marshall and Durden summary judgment based on qualified immunity with respect to Davila’s First Amendment claim.

A state officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that a reasonable officer would have known his failure to seek medical care violated a clearly established right.

Barton Ex Rel. Estate of Barton v. Taber · filed 2016-05-24

As recounted above, the complaint alleged facts that Barton exhibited symptoms substantially more serious than ordinary intoxication and that Owens was aware of these symptoms and of the fact that Barton had recently been in a vehicular accident. Accordingly, we hold that, under these circumstances, a reasonable officer would “comprehend that he was violating [Barton’s] clearly established constitutional rights.”

Police officers may be denied qualified immunity from § 1983 claims alleging unlawful arrest, illegal search, and excessive force.

Sialoi v. City of San Diego · filed 2016-05-24

The plaintiffs filed this action against the officers involved in the incident, as well as the City of San Diego, alleging various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law, including unlawful arrest and detention, illegal search, and excessive force. The defendants moved ... for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, and the district court granted the motion with respect to the City but denied it with respect to the officers. The officers then appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment. We affirm the district court.

An officer sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs show both a violation of a federal right and that the right was clearly established when the officer acted.

Wilson Ex Rel. Estate of Wilson v. Miller · filed 2016-05-24

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Plaintiffs must show both that Officer Miller violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established -- for the circumstances -- when Officer Miller acted. ... Thus, Officer Miller is personally entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim if either the alleged constitutional violation or the clearly established right requirement is absent.

Ratcliff v. City of Red Lodge, Department of Police · filed 2016-05-24

If either prong is not met, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is immune from liability under § 1983 when the unlawfulness of the officer’s use of force was not clearly established at the time.

C v. Ex Rel. Villegas v. City of Anaheim · filed 2016-05-25

Bennallack is therefore immune from liability ... under section 1983 for his use of deadly force, so we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when prior decisions gave fair notice that shooting an unarmed, retreating person who posed no immediate threat was unconstitutional.

Ayers v. Officer Billy Shane Harrison · filed 2016-05-26

Gilmere and Lundgren provided Officer Harrison with sufficient notice that his use of deadly force was unconstitutional.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the defendant’s conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Corrales v. Impastato · filed 2016-05-27

Because we find that Officer Impastato’s use of deadly force did not violate Corrales’s Fourth Amendment rights, Officer Impastato is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when material factual disputes remain about whether the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Moon v. Rockdale County · filed 2016-05-27

Thus, there remain material questions of fact regarding whether Smith violated Moon’s clearly established constitutional rights. As such, Smith cannot prevail on his motion for summary judgment, either as it pertains to qualified immunity or on the merits of the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officials who would have understood that denying employment in retaliation for protected speech violated a clearly established right.

Miller v. Detroit Public Schools · filed 2016-05-27

As to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court finds that any manager in the Defendants’ position would have understood that she was under an affirmative duty not to deny Plaintiff employment because of her speech concerning charter schools, emergency managers, school closings and misuse of public funds. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges conduct that violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Davis v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-05-31

Because, as pled, the officers’ execution of the warrant was objectively unreasonable, the Complaint does state a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and the officers are not protected by qualified immunity on Count IV.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez · filed 2016-05-31

His estate sued the 911 operator, alleging civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. ... We conclude the law was not clearly established such that a reasonable 911 operator would have known his conduct violated Reat’s constitutional rights. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Rodriguez.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not shield jail officers merely because the threat they faced differed from those in prior cases when a plausible threat of serious injury made their duty to protect clear.

Wright v. Collison · filed 2016-06-02

A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity simply because the threat and the surrounding circumstances in his or her case are not identical to those in any precedent. If the evidence reveals that the threat of serious injury is plausible, the duty to protect is clear.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity from a wrongful arrest claim when a reasonable officer would not have understood that the arrest violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Hauck v. Walker · filed 2016-06-02

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hauck’s wrongful arrest claim on the ground that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the arrest it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that an arrest pursuant to an out-of-state warrant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Jackson v. Russell · filed 2016-06-02

Because there is no violation of a constitutional or statutory right, defendant is protected by qualified immunity which bars plaintiffs claims.

In a § 1983 false arrest claim, an officer has qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have concluded that probable cause existed.

Figueroa v. Mazza · filed 2016-06-03

(1) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Samuel’s false arrest claims, because we cannot say that, in the circumstances obtaining at the time of Samuel’s arrest, no reasonable police officer could have concluded that probable cause existed.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 claim for a frisk or purse search when no reasonable officer could believe the passenger was dangerous and her right was clearly established.

Pegg v. Klempa · filed 2016-06-06

We thus conclude that, at the summary judgment stage, Herrnberger is not entitled to qualified immunity for his frisk of Mrs. Pegg, and Klempa is not entitled to qualified immunity for his search of Mrs. Pegg’s purse.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a retaliatory arrest claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Picray v. Duffitt · filed 2016-06-06

The purported right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is otherwise supported by probable cause was not clearly established in this circuit at the time of Picray’s arrest. ... Given that uncertainty, we cannot conclude that the law was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, the evidence supports a prolonged dog attack after surrender.

Chatman v. Ft. Lauderdale Police Department · filed 2016-06-06

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, defendant Deputy Gerald Wengert appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. ... Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order denying Deputy Wengert’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim against government officials must overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Wilson v. McGinnis · filed 2016-06-07

It is evident that the care rendered by both Whitt and McGinnis did not meet the high threshold required to qualify as deliberate indifference: Wilson has accordingly failed to overcome their qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established in the specific circumstances.

Paoli v. Stetser · filed 2016-06-08

Because Paoli’s rights were not clearly established at the time of Rowley’s entry, we need not determine whether Rowley’s entry was unreasonable. We therefore conclude that Rowley is entitled to qualified immunity, and we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

Municipal entities cannot claim qualified immunity from § 1983 liability, although individual officials may be immune when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Rubeor v. Town of Wright · filed 2016-06-08

Therefore, the constitutional right in question was not clearly established, and individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. However, it is well settled that municipal entities are not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability. ... Therefore, the Town of Wright and the Town Board are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action calls for an individualized assessment of each officer’s defense.

McKinney v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government · filed 2016-06-09

The officers also raise an abstract legal issue, which is that the district court refused to conduct an individualized assessment of each officer’s qualified-immunity defense until further evidence had been presented at trial. The district court conducted a sufficiently individualized assessment of each officer’s qualified-immunity defense. This argument therefore does not provide a basis for relief.

Qualified immunity protects officials from § 1983 liability if their actions did not violate clearly established law or they could objectively reasonably believe their actions were lawful.

Anello v. Anderson · filed 2016-06-10

Officials are protected from § 1983 liability on the basis of qualified immunity if (1) their actions did not violate clearly established law, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions did not violate the law. ... Consequently, Robins is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a § 1983 inadequate-nutrition claim when clearly established law would have warned them that significant weight loss or other adverse physical effects could establish a constitutional violation.

Ingrassia v. Dicknette · filed 2016-06-13

At the time of the alleged violations, however, it was clearly established that a prisoner may properly allege a constitutional violation by demonstrating significant weight loss or other adverse physical effects from lack of nutrition. ... Because the law was settled, the district court properly denied summary judgment to Englehart, Blake and Weinkein.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates a clearly established federal right.

Davis v. Clifford · filed 2016-06-13

Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Davis, we conclude she has met her burden to demonstrate that the law was clearly established that the officers used excessive force. Thus, Clifford and Fahlsing are not entitled to qualified immunity and we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to these two officers.

Qualified immunity does not shield a jail nurse from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable nurse would have known that refusing treatment violated a detainee’s constitutional rights.

Lindley v. Taylor · filed 2016-06-13

Because a reasonable nurse would have known that refusing Lindley treatment in his condition was a constitutional violation, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Taylor is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Lindley’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional law.

Townsend v. Wilson · filed 2016-06-14

Officer Wilson is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Townsend’s claim that the administration of the PBT violated the Fourth Amendment.

Section 1983 permits civil damages claims against public officials subject to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights.

Dunn v. City of Boynton Beach · filed 2016-06-14

A public official performing a discretionary function enjoys qualified immunity in a civil action for damages if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 places on a plaintiff suing an official the burden of overcoming qualified immunity.

Zuhl v. County of Berrien · filed 2016-06-16

A plaintiff who brings a § 1983 action against such an official bears the burden of overcoming the qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 provides the basis for excessive force claims against police officers, subject to qualified immunity.

Moody v. City of Newport News · filed 2016-06-16

Because the determination of .whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights is a component of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court analyzes both arguments under the rubric of its qualified immunity analysis below. “ ... ‘Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’ ”

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

Lefort v. Rahe · filed 2016-06-17

The Court also finds that Mr. Rahe and Ms. Keough are entitled to summary judgment because the objective reasonableness of the actions of Mr. Rahe and Ms. Keough entitle them to qualified immunity with regard to the 4th Amendment Claim. Probation and parole officers are ... entitled to qualified immunity for their non-adjudicatory – or discretionary – activities. Qualified immunity shields arresting officers from a suit for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officers possessed.

Section 1983 civil damages claims against government officials may be barred by qualified immunity unless the official violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Mayfield v. Bethards · filed 2016-06-20

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. ... Accordingly, the Complaint plausibly states a claim that survives a qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 does not provide governmental bodies qualified immunity from damages actions.

Treadwell v. McHenry County · filed 2016-06-20

The “Supreme -Court [has] authoritatively determined ... that governmental bodies do not enjoy qualified immunity from damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Hedge v. Cnty. of Tippecanoe, 890 F.2d 4, 8 (7th Cir.1989). Here, Treadwell’s Monell claim against the County Defendants is just such an action, and therefore qualified immunity does not apply.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for a mental health detention when they reasonably rely on an emergency custody order obtained by someone else.

Burruss v. Riley · filed 2016-06-14

Therefore, the court concludes that the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions after the ECO was issued. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as to the § 1983 claim against the Officer Defendants.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right.

Williams v. Nice · filed 2016-06-16

Under these facts, a jury could conclude that Officer Morgan’s conduct was not objectively reasonable and the force he used on T.W. was excessive, in violation of her constitutional right to be free of such force. His claim of qualified immunity must fail.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an official when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Quinton Brown v. Adams · filed 2016-06-23

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying Brown’s religious texts for a temporary period of time would place a substantial burden on Brown’s free exercise of his religion.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when he violates no constitutional right, let alone a clearly established one.

Thomas v. Moody · filed 2016-06-24

Because Moody violated no constitutional right, let alone a clearly established one, we conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer would have known the alleged force violated a clearly established right.

Muhammad v. Skinner · filed 2016-06-24

Given the case law cited supra, and viewing all the facts and the video evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that every reasonable officer in Defendants’ positions would have been aware in July 2011 that tasing, beating, or stepping on a neutralized and restrained pretrial detainee constituted excessive and gratuitous force. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity on Plaintiffs claims of excessive force.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave them fair warning that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Bowen Ex Rel. Estate of Bowen v. Warden, Baldwin State Prison · filed 2016-06-22

These defendants therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a detainee plausibly alleges that they withheld prescribed pain medication in violation of a clearly established right to adequate medical care.

Dadd v. Anoka County · filed 2016-06-30

Dadd’s right to adequate treatment was clearly established, and the district court properly denied the defendants qualified immunity.

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

Walter Dodd, Jr. v. Simmons · filed 2016-07-06

Probable cause supported Officer Pierce’s arrest of Earl, and a proper analysis of the trial testimony ought to have led the district court to grant him qualified immunity.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a § 1983 action must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Bloom v. Pompa · filed 2016-07-06

To defeat an assertion of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing: (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation. ... We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Bloom’s claims against Pompa.

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

Jones v. Michael · filed 2016-07-07

Because arguable probable cause existed to arrest Jones for resisting without violence, Officer Negron is entitled to qualified immunity from Jones’s claim for false arrest.

Section 1983 does not impose personal liability on an official who is entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established at the time.

Brickey v. Robb Hall · filed 2016-07-08

We hold that it was not clearly established on the date of Brickey’s termination that his speech interests as a citizen outweighed Hall’s interests as an employer. Hall is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Correctional officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would have known their response to a known threat violated clearly established law.

Dewayne Cox v. Quinn · filed 2016-07-06

On the record as we may view it here, we find that the district court correctly concluded that the correctional officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment in a § 1983 action when disputed facts prevent the court from determining whether the defendant violated clearly established rights.

Solis-Diaz v. Tompkins · filed 2016-07-06

Tompkins is therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officials sued in their individual capacities for monetary damages under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity.

Pham v. University of Louisiana at Monroe · filed 2016-07-13

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the extent they seek qualified immunity with respect to all claims against them in their individual capacities for monetary damages.

Defendants in Section 1983 suits are entitled to qualified immunity when they did not act unreasonably in light of established law.

Pate v. Harbers · filed 2016-07-14

Although the defendants were presented with a close case relative to balancing the interests of this two-year-old child and the rights of the parent, we do not think the defendants acted unreasonably in the light of the established law. The defendants are therefore entitled to claim qualified immunity and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

An officer facing a § 1983 damages claim has qualified immunity for an arrest supported by arguable probable cause.

Krogh v. Sweeney · filed 2016-07-14

Here, Sweeney had arguable probable cause to arrest Krogh. ... But based on the information available to Sweeney and the totality of the circumstances, he is shielded from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants accused of fabricating evidence and destroying exculpatory evidence are not entitled to qualified immunity on the pleadings when they fail to show that a reasonable officer would have believed the alleged conduct lawful.

Zimmerman v. Corbett · filed 2016-07-15

Defendants have not met their burden of showing that Defendants Fiore and Speaks are entitled to qualified immunity.

A police officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest made without arguable probable cause in violation of clearly established law.

Benson v. Facemyer · filed 2016-07-20

Accordingly, we conclude from the record that the district court did not err in denying Officer Facemyer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because his initial detainment of Benson was an arrest, and Officer Facemyer violated clearly established law in making that arrest. Thus, Officer Facemyer was not entitled to qualified immunity at the time of the initial arrest.

Officers sued under Section 1983 for false arrest are entitled to qualified immunity when they had arguable probable cause, even if actual probable cause is disputed.

Tarpley v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2016-07-21

Because the officers believed that the car wash was Flea Market property, they could have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Tarpley for trespass when they saw Tarpley standing near his car at the car wash; therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim when reasonable officers would have known that disregarding a restrained prisoner’s pleas about painful handcuffs was unlawful.

Ajala v. Tom · filed 2016-07-22

Defendants have never even alleged a penological justification for refusing to loosen Ajala’s handcuffs, so if, as the district court assumed, a reasonable jury could find that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the pain and lasting damage the handcuffs caused Ajala, it follows that reasonable officers in their positions would have known that it was unlawful for them to disregard Ajala’s pleas for help.

Qualified immunity does not defeat a § 1983 claim at the pleadings stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Kellum v. Mares · filed 2016-07-25

We decline to decide this issue because we agree with the district court’s alternative conclusion that, assuming for the sake of argument Nurse Breen could assert a qualified immunity defense, Ms. Kellum’s complaint states a plausible claim that Nurse Breen is not entitled to such immunity because she violated Ms. Kellum’s clearly established Eighth Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit requires an individualized assessment of each officer’s conduct.

Rolen v. City of Cleveland · filed 2016-07-25

The district court’s ultimate conclusions refer to each officer separately, and the court engaged in an individualized assessment of each officer’s conduct. ... Thus, the district court did not err.

A § 1983 plaintiff opposing summary judgment on qualified immunity must show that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Thompson v. City of Lebanon · filed 2016-07-26

A plaintiff who brings a § 1983 action against such an official bears the burden of overcoming the qualified immunity defense. ... At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity to Officer McKinley.

Officials sued under § 1983 were not entitled to qualified immunity for reprimanding a school employee whose First Amendment rights were clearly established.

Ely v. Dearborn Heights School District · filed 2016-07-22

After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to Thieken and Bartold.

Section 1983 allows a claim against a government official for a constitutional or statutory violation, subject to qualified immunity unless the right was clearly established.

Beau Morris v. Morrison · filed 2012-08-31

After careful de novo review, see Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (8th Cir. 2010), we agree with the district court’s summary judgment decision, see Gladson v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 551 F.3d 825, 832-33 (8th Cir. 2009) (when faced with both First Amendment and RLUIPA claims, threshold inquiry is whether prison has substantially burdened prisoner’s ability to practice religion; if prisoner fails to put forth sufficient evidence of substantial burden, court need not further analyze claim; to constitute substantial burden, government policy or actions must significantly inhibit or constrain religious conduct or expression, meaningfully curtail person’s ability to express adherence to his faith, or deny him reasonable opportunities to engage in activities fundamental to his religion); Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 490 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity protects government official unless official’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory right at time of deprivation).

Section 1983 permits a person to sue government officials for violating constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Graham v. Gagnon · filed 2016-07-27

However, an arresting officer is not automatically immunized from suit merely because the officer successfully requested an arrest warrant first.

Section 1983 provides a private right of action against officials who, under color of state law, deprive individuals of statutory or constitutional rights.

Schattilly v. Daugharty · filed 2016-07-29

Section 1983 creates a private right of action against officials who, under color of state law, deprive individuals of their statutory or constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams, ... Acevedo, and Daugharty do not dispute that they were acting under color of state law at the time of the incident. Instead, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. We agree.

Section 1983 imposes liability when an official violates a constitutional right and qualified immunity does not apply.

D.H., Ex Rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District · filed 2016-07-29

If McDowell instructed D.H. to pull down his underpants, and D.H. did so, then McDowell violated a constitutional right under clearly established law and is liable under § 1983. However, if McDowell only instructed D.H. to pull the waistband of his underpants briefly away from his body and did not otherwise indicate to D.H. that he had to strip fully nude, then McDowell did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and is entitled to qualified immunity against D.H.’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 authorizes civil rights claims against government officials, subject to qualified immunity for discretionary conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

McMullen v. Starkville Oktibbeha Consolidated School District · filed 2016-07-29

As a defense to Section 1983 claims, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields ‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Section 1983 provides a civil damages remedy against officials who, under color of state law, violate constitutional rights, subject to qualified immunity.

Conte v. Rios · filed 2016-08-01

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields government officials from liability for civil damages. In deciding whether to grant an official qualified immunity, the court must consider two questions: One, “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged [in the complaint] show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Two, was that right “clearly established.”

A § 1983 plaintiff must plead specific unconstitutional conduct by each official to overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage.

Little v. Texas Attorney General, et a · filed 2016-08-03

To defeat a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, the plaintiff “must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” ... Based on our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s opinion and affirm the dismissal of the claims against Defendants based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officials from a § 1983 claim when the alleged violation would not have been clear to every reasonable official.

Aguirre v. Lopez · filed 2016-08-03

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Aguirre’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that depriving Aguirre of outdoor exercise in response to ongoing violence between rival gangs was unconstitutional.

Qualified immunity can defeat § 1983 claims against individual officers.

Elbert v. City of Kansas City, Missouri · filed 2016-08-04

Having reviewed the record submitted on appeal de novo, we affirm on the bases set forth in the district court's reasoned opinion, including the court's constitutional analyses, the failure of Elbert to show genuine issues of material facts on claims, the court's grant of qualified immunity, its denial of Elbert's motion for leave to amend, and its decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct would not have been clear to every reasonable officer under the circumstances.

Williams v. City of San Leandro · filed 2016-08-04

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Mund on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable police officer that the search of Williams’s person and the vehicle was unlawful under the circumstances.

An officer sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts determine whether the officer’s use of force violated clearly established law.

Ginette Bone v. Dunnaway · filed 2016-08-05

Given this factual dispute, which turns on the credibility of Jones and Bone, we cannot resolve the qualified immunity question as a matter of law. Accordingly, we conclude that Jones is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Carter v. Huterson · filed 2016-08-08

Here, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their alleged taking of Carter’s blood sample because Carter has failed to demonstrate that, at the time of the events in question, civilly committed sexually violent predators maintained a clearly established right to be free from the warrantless drawing of a blood sample to produce a DNA profile.

Officers sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established federal right.

Prevatt v. City of Gainesville, Florida · filed 2016-08-08

Moreover, it was not already clearly established -- such that the question was “beyond debate” -- at the time Defendant Officers acted in 2013 that the amount of force used to subdue Plaintiff under the circumstances of this case was constitutionally excessive. Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 for unlawful arrest is entitled to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of the arrest was not clearly established.

Culver v. Armstrong · filed 2016-08-09

And this means that at the time of his encounter with Defendant, the law was not clearly established in Plaintiff’s favor, such that a reasonable officer would have known that seizing Plaintiff was against the law. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 unlawful-search claims against individual officers are barred by qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed the search warrant was supported by probable cause.

Whitten v. City of Omaha · filed 2016-08-09

Accordingly, the Court finds that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Whitten’s unlawful search claim.

A 911 operator is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that his conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Estate of Jimma Pal Reat v. Rodriguez · filed 2016-08-12

We conclude the law was not clearly established such that a reasonable 911 operator would have known his conduct violated Reat’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 suit when a reasonably competent officer could conclude that the officer’s conduct was lawful.

Getz v. Swoap · filed 2016-08-16

We hold that a reasonably competent officer could conclude that Swoap’s actions were lawful. He is therefore immune from suit.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

DeFelice v. Cummings · filed 2016-08-16

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff’ s § 1983 claims are barred and otherwise fail as a matter of law.

Section 1983 defendants can be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that a public employee spoke as a citizen outside ordinary job duties.

Carollo v. Boria · filed 2016-08-17

Nonetheless, with respect to the only question before us under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) — whether, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true, the complaint states a claim — we find it plausible under Iqbal and Twombly that Carollo spoke as a citizen and not pursuant to his ordinary job duties as City Manager when he made statements to law enforcement and other agencies about how Boria and Ruiz violated Florida’s campaign finance laws. “[A]t this stage and on the pleadings ... alone, [appellants] are not entitled to the protections of qualified immunity” on this claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the evidence leaves open whether a fleeing suspect posed an imminent danger.

Lewis v. Charter Township of Flint · filed 2016-08-22

Officers have fair warning that they may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect where that person presents no imminent danger to the officer or others in the area. Because the video does not conclusively show whether that was the case here, Needham is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the video alone.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity for officers, but it does not shield them when they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Duffie v. City of Lincoln · filed 2016-08-23

Although § 1983 makes no mention of qualified immunity, the common law roots of the doctrine are deep and were not discarded by § 1983's enactment. ... The district court erred in granting the three officers qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 cannot claim qualified immunity when the officer violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Vasquez v. Lewis · filed 2016-08-23

The district court concluded the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Vasquez’s asserted right was not clearly established. We disagree. We conclude that the Officers acted without reasonable suspicion and violated clearly established precedent.

Private medical personnel in prisons cannot claim qualified immunity from § 1983 suits.

Petties v. Carter · filed 2016-08-25

But even if the defendants preserved this argument, qualified immunity does not apply to private medical personnel in prisons.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 damages claims when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Wright v. Watson · filed 2016-08-25

As discussed in more detail below, the Court finds that it was not clearly established in June 2013 that the area near the shed was part of the curti-lage of the Wrights’ home such that it was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Wright’s claims based on the initial search, and the Court need not decide whether the warrantless search was authorized due to exigent circumstances.

Qualified immunity can support summary judgment for a deputy sheriff on a § 1983 claim challenging a traffic stop and vehicle search.

Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. v. Brewer · filed 2016-08-26

The district court properly dismissed Hernandez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (count 7) against all Pinal County Defendants except Defendant Deputy Sheriff Parry. ... Finally, the district court also properly granted summary judgment to Deputy Parry on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when genuine disputes of material fact remain.

Flythe v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-08-26

Against the officers, Ms. Flythe alleged constitutional excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and common law assault and battery claims. ... On remand, Officer Eagan has again moved for summary judgment, arguing that notwithstanding the D.C. Circuit’s decision, summary judgment should be granted in his favor in light of the record produced at trial. The Court disagrees, both because the circuit did have the trial record before it and also because, in any event, genuine issues of material fact remain even after considering the trial testimony. Accordingly, the Court will deny both of Officer Eagan’s motions.

In a Section 1983 claim, once an official shows he acted within his discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Jacoby v. Baldwin County · filed 2016-08-29

If a public official was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, the burden falls to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit on the ground that a prisoner’s right to participate in a disciplinary hearing was not clearly established in 2006.

Williams v. Williams · filed 2016-08-31

Thus, the court granted summary judgment on the due process claim in favor of the defendant, based on qualified immunity. ... The court erred when it concluded that the right was not clearly established in 2006.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 damages when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Werner v. Wall · filed 2016-09-01

Because clearly established law at the time would not have notified the defendants in this case that the procedures set forth in AD 02-10 were unlawful, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Werner’s claims.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct.

Bratt v. George · filed 2016-09-02

Under McClish, the law had been clearly established at the time of Bratt’s arrest, and the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity to George on summary judgment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when a reasonable officer at the scene could have believed the force was justified.

Collar v. Austin · filed 2016-09-02

Judging the matter from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, Officer Austin is entitled to qualified immunity.

A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for exposing a young child to an obvious danger in violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

L.R. v. Philadelphia School District · filed 2016-09-06

Exposing a young child to an obvious danger is the quintessential example of when qualified immunity should not shield a public official from suit.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a jury must decide whether the defendant violated clearly established law by consciously disregarding a known medical risk.

Zaya v. Sood · filed 2016-09-06

We need not do so because even if a qualified-immunity defense were available to Dr. Sood, he would not be entitled to summary judgment on that basis.

An officer who did nothing to verify the address before executing a search warrant may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Treat v. Lowe · filed 2016-09-08

Lowe appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment on Treat and Walker’s § 1983 claims. ... As the district court explained here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Treat and Walker, Lowe did not engage in “well-intentioned attempts,” but rather “did nothing” to ascertain the correct address at which to execute the search warrant. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Lowe.

Qualified immunity shields individual defendants from § 1983 damages when the asserted due process right was not clearly established at the time of the violation.

Pauluk v. Savage · filed 2016-09-08

We hold that the state-created danger doctrine is a viable theory of due process liability under § 1983, even in workplace environments. However, in light of the factual similarity between this case and Collins, we hold that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to Wojcik and Savage.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim cannot overcome an official’s qualified immunity without showing a constitutional violation.

Penton v. Leon County Florida · filed 2016-09-09

Because Penton has not shown a constitutional violation, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating that Seltz is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff who fails to show a constitutional violation cannot overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity.

Vandewalle v. Leon County Florida · filed 2016-09-09

Because Penton has not shown a constitutional violation, she cannot meet her burden of demonstrating that Seitz is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on officials for a claimed Sixth Amendment violation when existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Stewart v. Wagner · filed 2016-09-12

And there were no § 1983 precedents giving these defendants “fair and clear warning of what the Constitution requires,” Al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2086-87 (quotations omitted), and therefore no “existing precedent [that] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate,” Stanton, 134 S. Ct. at 5. In such circumstances, suppression, not § 1983 damage liability, is the appropriate remedy.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims when they had probable cause to arrest and prosecute the plaintiff.

Goodwin v. Conway · filed 2016-09-12

Because we conclude that Defendants had probable cause to arrest and prosecute Goodwin, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 false arrest claim, officers have qualified immunity if a reasonable officer in their position would have believed there was probable cause to arrest.

Sowers v. City of Charlotte · filed 2016-09-12

In analyzing whether law enforcement officers have qualified immunity in a false arrest claim pursuant to § 1983, the issue is not whether probable cause actually exists but whether a reasonable officer in the officer’s position would have believed he had probable cause to arrest.

A defendant sufficiently invokes qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim by pleading facts connecting his work to the state and expressly asserting the defense.

Saenz v. City of El Paso · filed 2016-09-12

Romero alleged that he was acting in the scope of his employment with a private security company under its contract with the City of El Paso when he assisted in transporting Saenz to jail. He also noted that Roswitha’s own pleadings stated that Romero’s responsibilities in transporting prisoners had traditionally been the exclusive province of the state, and that he was therefore in a “position of interdependence” with the City of El Paso. In addition, Romero’s pleadings explicitly stated that he was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Roswitha’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims on multiple occasions. Taken together, these assertions are sufficient to invoke the defense of qualified immunity, and the district court erred in holding that Romero failed to do so.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Wheelings v. Dorosh · filed 2016-09-13

We need not decide whether defendants violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights because we conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Sullivan v. City of Round Rock, Tex · filed 2016-09-14

At the first step of the qualified-immunity inquiry, the record shows that, even accepting (as we do) the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, the officers did not violate Sullivan’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law forbids shooting a compliant suspect who poses no imminent threat.

Sexton v. Mangiaracina · filed 2016-09-16

Those cases clearly established the unreasonableness and unlawfulness of the officers’ decision to shoot Sexton under what we have taken to be the facts for present purposes, keeping in mind that they may not be the actual facts established at trial.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the officer’s conduct violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

A. K. H. Ex Rel. Landeros v. City of Tustin · filed 2016-09-16

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we conclude that Villarreal violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law when he shot and killed Herrera.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Zickes v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2016-09-16

Thus, there is no First Amendment violation. Accordingly, Defendants Smith and Carroll are entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore summary judgment, on both claims.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have understood that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Malo v. Hernandez · filed 2016-09-21

The district court properly dismissed Malo’s Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim on summary judgment when disputed facts are material to whether the officer acted reasonably.

Jones-Huff v. Hill · filed 2016-09-21

Where the parties dispute facts key to the determination of whether the officer acted reasonably, the Court cannot determine whether the officer enjoys immunity on a summary judgment motion. As described above, the parties dispute whether Jones-Huff reached for the shotgun before Defendant Hill shot her. A grant of summary judgment for reasons of qualified immunity would not be appropriate.

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim when the governing federal law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Rodriguez v. Burdick · filed 2016-09-22

After review and oral argument, we conclude that the district court erred in denying summary judgment to Defendant Bur-dick on the substantive due process claims in Count VIII because the federal law as to those claims was not clearly established at the time of the events, and Defendant Burdick was entitled to qualified immunity on all claims in Count VIII.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, officers may be denied qualified immunity for continuing to press on a subdued person’s back while the person lies face down.

McCue v. City of Bangor Maine · filed 2016-09-26

Even without particular Supreme Court and First Circuit cases directly on point, it was clearly established in September 2012 that exerting significant, continued force on a person's back "while that [person] is in a face-down prone position after being subdued and/or incapacitated constitutes excessive force." Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143, 1155 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Champion ... v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 903 (6th Cir. 2004)).

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 unreasonable search claim.

Southerland v. Woo · filed 2016-09-26

And the Southerland Children object to (1) the District Court’s conclusion that Woo was entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable search claim, (2) the District Court’s admission into evidence of printouts from the New York City Family Court computer system, and (3) certain limitations the District Court placed on cross-examination. We have reviewed all of these arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity from an excessive force claim when the officer uses gratuitous force against a nonresisting arrestee.

Scott v. Palmer · filed 2016-09-27

Although the non-resisting plaintiffs in Saunders, Hadley, and Lee were handcuffed when the officers in those cases applied their force, and Mr. Scott had one arm free when Sergeant Palmer took him to the ground, the Court considers the absence of resistance—not the presence of handcuffs—to be the operative factor in the analysis. ... Accordingly, Sergeant Palmer is entitled to neither qualified immunity nor summary judgment on Mr. Scott’s excessive force claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 for excessive force is entitled to qualified immunity when his belief that the force was lawful and necessary is objectively reasonable.

Jamee Wade v. Copeland · filed 2016-09-28

However, Copeland was entitled to qualified immunity as to the second shooting. Copeland’s belief that his use of force was legal and that he faced serious risk of harm was objectively reasonable.

Qualified immunity does not shield correctional officers from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

DeJesus v. Delaware · filed 2016-09-28

Therefore, in this case, the constitutional right is clearly established consistent with Third Circuit caselaw. Taking the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, the complaint at bar has sufficiently pled a cognizable constitutional claim. The State defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest was lawful under the circumstances.

Wilson v. Jean · filed 2016-09-29

Here, the District Court correctly concluded that qualified immunity was appropriate with respect to the § 1983 false arrest claim because the circumstances “disclose[d] substantial grounds for the officer[s] to have concluded [they] had legitimate justification under the law for acting as [they] did.”

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Heinisch v. Bernardini · filed 2016-09-29

Even assuming such a right exists, there is no support for concluding that it was clearly established prior to the events in this case. As a result, Defendant Crowe is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim must be dismissed.

Qualified immunity does not shield a jail officer from a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim when the officer ignores a known serious medical need in violation of a clearly established right.

McBride v. Houston County Health Care Authority · filed 2016-09-30

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to McBride, Johnson is not entitled to qualified immunity on McBride’s claim of deliberate indifference to her serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an official whose conduct violates a clearly established right.

Jenkins v. University of Minnesota · filed 2016-10-03

Because we find that Jenkins has satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, we agree with the district court that Swem was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment on that basis.

Government officials sued for damages under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.

Fish v. Brown · filed 2016-10-03

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects governmental officials who are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money damages in their personal, or individual, capacities, but only so long as “their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Jenkins v. Swem · filed 2016-10-03

Because we find that Jenkins has satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis, we agree with the district court that Swem was not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment on that basis.

An official sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that her conduct violated a clearly established right.

Tanner v. Phillips · filed 2016-10-04

The district court properly dismissed Tanner’s federal claim against Phillips in her individual capacity because Tanner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Phillips’ conduct violated a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action depends on whether the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Ramos v. Garcia · filed 2016-10-12

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we consider: (1) whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury, show that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under § 1983 when a reasonable officer could believe the challenged conduct was lawful.

Timphony v. City of Pasadena · filed 2016-10-12

The District Court was also correct in its conclusion that Verduzeo is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... A reasonable officer in Verduzeo’s situation could believe he was acting legally in towing the car despite its driver’s protest.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that they violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Courtright v. City of Battle Creek · filed 2016-10-14

Because Courtright alleged a plausible claim that the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the excessive-force and false-arrest claims.