42 U.S.C. § 1983

A defendant in a § 1983 suit may receive qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Birdo v. Gomez · filed 2016-10-17

Thus, while the Court reaffirms its finding that Plaintiffs actions in relation to the purported retaliation were constitutionally protected, State Defendants McGarvey and Nushardt are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity.

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Duran v. Donaldson · filed 2016-10-18

As relevant to Nurse Curtis’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, when a defendant asserts qualified immunity as a defense to a § 1983 claim, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” Martinez, 563 F.3d at 1088.

Qualified immunity is unavailable in a § 1983 claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, permits a finding that officials violated a clearly established right.

Doe v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-10-18

None of this is to say that Gladden and Ogu are necessarily liable under § 1983. The jury may or may not find the factual predicates to Doe’s Eighth Amendment claims. But, on the present record, and resolving all disputed factual issues in Doe’s favor, qualified immunity is unavailable.

Officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 due process claim based on failure to personally serve a property owner with a warrant receipt when no clearly established law requires personal service.

Moon v. Fischer · filed 2016-10-18

Here, the Court agrees that, even assuming a constitutional violation occurred, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A law enforcement officer can be denied qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims of excessive force and unlawful seizure.

Phillips v. Browne · filed 2016-10-19

Jim Browne, a law enforcement officer, appeals the District Court’s March 9, 2016, order denying his motion for summary judgment---based on the defense of qualified immunity---on Gina Marea Phillips’s claims of excessive force and unlawful seizure brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 33. After reading the parties’ briefs and the record before the District Court, we find no basis for disturbing the Court’s order.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Zaloga v. Borough of Moosic · filed 2016-10-24

Mercatili now appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct, even if Zaloga’s allegations are true, did not violate clearly established law. We agree and will reverse and remand for the District Court to grant summary judgment in Mercatili’s favor.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim at this stage when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Ortega v. San Diego Police Department · filed 2016-10-26

Therefore, McCarthy is not entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment violations at this stage of litigation.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a federal right.

Cristo v. Evangelidis · filed 2016-10-28

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Evangelidis's motion for summary judgment, based on the defense of qualified immunity, should have been allowed because on the record before us, Cristo's speech, while related to matters of public concern, was undertaken in his capacity as an employee of the sheriff's office, and not as a private citizen.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the officer’s conduct was not objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.

Tanner Griggs v. Charley Brewer · filed 2016-10-28

We therefore hold that Officer Brewer is entitled to qualified immunity as to the claims stemming from his attempts to handcuff Griggs while Griggs was on the ground.

Qualified immunity protects an official from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a statutory or constitutional right.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Harris · filed 2016-10-31

Notwithstanding the above, the Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to the qualified immunity defense because Prime fails to state § 1983 claims for (1) violation of its due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) violation of its equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) violation of its rights under the NLRA. Prime has not made a showing that Harris violated a statutory or constitutional right and thus cannot meet its burden at step one of the qualified immunity analysis.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when a material factual dispute remains about whether the person shot posed a serious threat.

Cantrell v. White · filed 2016-11-01

A material factual dispute exists about whether Antoine posed a threat of serious harm to White when the shooting occurred. ... We AFFIRM the denial of White’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

An official acting within discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages if the plaintiff fails to show that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Cox v. Cache County · filed 2016-11-02

For these reasons, we conclude that Cox failed to establish that Inspector James’s conduct, in approaching and opening Cox’s hives in order to determine who owned them, violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. We, therefore, uphold the district court’s decision to grant James qualified immunity.

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

Higginbotham v. Sylvester · filed 2016-11-02

However, even if probable cause was lacking, defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff forfeits a challenge to qualified immunity by failing to meaningfully argue that the defendant violated clearly established law.

Randle v. Tregre · filed 2016-11-03

Here, Randle makes no meaningful attempt to argue that Bordelon’s actions violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. He has thus forfeited any argument in this respect.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Kerr v. Morrison · filed 2016-11-04

Qualified immunity shields officials from claims for money damages unless a 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.’” ... Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity for the brief period that Kerr was handcuffed prior to the dog alert.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting a defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Oakley v. Hudson · filed 2016-11-04

Oakley has the burden of rebutting Hudson’s qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity does not protect officers from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when prior circuit law clearly established that their alleged conduct was unlawful.

Jacoby v. Sheriff Huey Mack · filed 2016-11-07

The Danley decision’s legal principle that jailers cannot continue to use force against a compliant inmate clearly established the unlawfulness of Rowell and Keers’ alleged conduct.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against a prison nurse when the alleged failure to provide ordered physical therapy violates a clearly established right that a reasonable nurse would recognize.

Dauzat v. Carter · filed 2016-11-07

The district court did not err in denying Carter’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity as the court determined that Dauzat had stated a valid Eighth Amendment claim and that a reasonable nurse in Carter’s position would have understood that the failure to provide physical therapy as ordered violated Dauzat’s clearly established constitutional right.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless home search when no reasonable officer could have believed exigent circumstances justified it.

Corrigan v. District of Columbia · filed 2016-11-08

Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, disputed material facts can prevent summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Hawkins v. McMillan · filed 2016-11-09

In determining whether an officer is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, a district court is required to ask “whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer’s conduct violated a federal right.” ... We have reviewed the record, including Hawkins’ verified complaint and his sworn declaration, and conclude that the district court failed to construe the facts in the light most favorable to Hawkins. Because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings in the district court.

Defendants in a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their actions.

Murray v. Williams · filed 2016-11-09

The Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Murray’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Qualified immunity does not defeat a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the plaintiff alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Anderson v. State of Texas · filed 2016-11-09

Accordingly, under Cutler, Anderson has pleaded the violation of a clearly established right. Qualified immunity thus does not apply — at least, not yet.

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim if the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time, even if the officer violated that right.

Vasquez-Brenes v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2016-11-10

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. ... Thus, even assuming that Miller’s conduct violated Brenes’s constitutional rights, it did not violate clearly established law.

In a § 1983 suit, a court must address an asserted qualified immunity defense when ruling on a motion to dismiss.

Randle v. Lockwood · filed 2016-11-10

Regardless of the pleading standard applicable to Randle’s claims, the district court was required to address whether the jailers were entitled to qualified immunity because the jailers asserted this defense in both their motions to dismiss and their objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that the defendant violated clearly established federal law to overcome qualified immunity.

Gutierrez v. Luna County · filed 2016-11-15

In this appeal, we conclude as to all three claims that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden as to clearly established law and do not address the first element of the qualified immunity analysis.

In a § 1983 suit, a court must consider whether the law gave an official fair notice that the alleged conduct was unlawful before denying qualified immunity.

Muth v. Woodring · filed 2016-11-15

Even if Muth had plausibly claimed a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, the Court should have still considered whether, “in light of the specific context of the case,” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004)), Shriver would have been on notice that his actions were unlawful.

Public officials have qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Blair v. City of Dallas · filed 2016-11-15

This Court has not yet weighed in on whether an officer’s use of force in such a circumstance constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it is apparent that any right that may have been violated was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ alleged misconduct.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 challenge to a mental-health seizure supported by arguable probable cause, but does not protect the officer from a challenge to a clearly unreasonable manner of carrying out the seizure.

May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia · filed 2016-11-15

In sum, we hold that Officer Allen is protected by qualified immunity from May’s challenge to his decision to seize and transport her to the hospital, but he is not entitled to qualified immunity from May’s claims challenging the manner of such seizure.

Section 1983 claims against arresting officers may be barred by qualified immunity when the officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest.

Bry v. City of Frontenac · filed 2016-11-16

Second, Bry offers no valid basis for overturning the well-reasoned determination that the record showed that the defendant police officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Bry.

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

Caminata v. County of Wexford · filed 2016-11-17

Jenkinson is thus entitled to qualified immunity on Caminata’s Fourth Amendment claims of fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution.

Section 1983 does not impose individual liability on officials protected by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Meyers v. Kishimoto · filed 2016-11-17

Accordingly, the Individual Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if Plaintiff had established the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right sufficient to support his § 1983 claims.

A prison official may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established, even if the alleged conduct violated the Eighth Amendment.

Jackson v. Holley · filed 2016-11-18

Given the lack of circuit authority regarding whether sexual harassment by prison officials amounts to a constitutional violation, we also find that it was not unreasonable for Holley to have “failed to appreciate that h[er] conduct would violate [Jackson’s] rights.” ... Thus, even if the conduct about which Jackson complains is sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation, Holley is entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry.

A jail officer who responds reasonably to a detainee’s known suicide risk is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Hyatt v. Callahan County · filed 2016-11-18

Because we find that Thomas responded reasonably to Hyatt’s known suicide risk, we hold that she was not deliberately indifferent and thus was entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for an arrest made under a warrant when it was not clearly established that the arrestee’s conduct was lawful under another ordinance.

Baldwin v. Estherville, Iowa · filed 2016-11-18

Therefore, in addition or in the alternative, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Baldwin’s federal constitutional claim pursuant to § 1983 on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from an individual capacity § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Star Hart v. Logan · filed 2016-11-22

We hold, however, that Officer Logan is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff has not demonstrated that Officer Logan violated any clearly established constitutional rights.

An officer sued in his individual capacity under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff shows that he violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Adams v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County · filed 2016-11-22

The law being clearly established, Plaintiff has shown that both prongs of the qualified immunity test are met. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Defendant on his qualified immunity defense.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when they could reasonably believe their conduct was lawful and any unlawfulness was not clearly established.

Von Brincken v. Voss · filed 2016-11-23

Because Voss and Legarra could reasonably believe that their conduct complied with the law, and any unlawfulness was not clearly established (even assuming their conduct was unlawful), they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields individual officials from § 1983 damages when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Lee-Walker v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. · filed 2016-11-23

Moreover, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... In light of this uncertainty, officials in the defendants’ positions could reasonably have believed that demanding changes to the plaintiffs lesson plans or disciplining her for failing to comply with those instructions or for the content of her classroom teaching did not violate the plaintiffs First Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity bars damages under Section 1983 when the plaintiff has not shown that the official violated clearly established law.

Eves v. LePage · filed 2016-11-22

We leave them for another day and affirm dismissal of the damages claims on narrow grounds: Governor LePage is entitled to qualified immunity, because Speaker Eves has not shown that it was beyond debate that the Governor's discretionary actions amounted to unconstitutional retaliation against the Speaker.

At summary judgment, an officer may be denied qualified immunity in a § 1983 action when the facts viewed in the plaintiff’s favor show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Hughes v. Kisela · filed 2016-11-28

As indicated by Glenn and Deorle, as well as the Supreme Court’s reference to the “obvious case,” Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199, that right was clearly established. Based on the disputed facts, Corporal Kisela is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 claim against a public official can proceed despite qualified immunity when the complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Bailey v. Major Tommy Wheeler · filed 2016-11-28

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action. ... For these reasons, we agree with the district court’s assessment that the operative complaint sufficiently alleges that Wheeler violated Bailey’s clearly established constitutional right. So we affirm the district court’s denial of Wheeler’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable officer would have understood that the conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted.

Lee Rice, II v. Murakami · filed 2016-11-29

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim cannot be decided on summary judgment when it depends on disputed facts.

Reeves v. City of West Liberty, Kentucky · filed 2016-11-29

The question of qualified immunity in this case turns upon which version of the facts one accepts, and, as such, cannot be determined at this juncture.

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

Vangel v. Szopko · filed 2016-11-30

Even if the Officers erred in balancing these interests, we cannot say that their error was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. We hold that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 false arrest suit, officers lack qualified immunity when neither actual nor arguable probable cause supported the arrest.

Harris v. City of New York · filed 2016-12-02

The fact that Plaintiff had previously seen one of the officers (a fact confirmed by one of the officers, though our knowledge of his testimony is premature) does not alter the Court’s conclusion that the police were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, because there was neither actual nor arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a false arrest damages claim when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Russell v. the Journal News · filed 2016-12-05

We agree with the district court that the Harrison Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Russell for criminal trespass.

Section 1983 individual-capacity claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established right.

Thomas v. White-Gordon · filed 2016-12-06

Second, the district court properly dismissed the § 1983 claims against Defendant. Plaintiffs do not press an official-capacity claim; and as we proceed to explain, the claim against Defendant in her individual capacity was properly dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

A § 1983 claim against an officer may proceed when qualified immunity is not apparent from the complaint.

Jurkowitsch v. Choudhury · filed 2016-12-08

Officer Choudhury’s entitlement to qualified immunity is not apparent on the face of this complaint, and the district court correctly declined to dismiss Jurkowitsch’s § 1983 claim at this stage.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 liability when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Gilani v. Matthews · filed 2016-12-08

Since no violation of a constitutional right occurred, the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity to Officers Matthews and Collins.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Wallace v. Cummings · filed 2016-12-09

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the estate, a reasonable fact finder could thus conclude that the seizure violated a clearly established constitutional right.

A § 1983 damages claim based on retaliation for threatening to file a grievance requires a clearly established right protecting that threat.

Faircloth v. Schwartz · filed 2016-12-12

And to prevail on a damage claim under § 1983, the showing that the activity was constitutionally protected must be supported by clearly established law.

Prison officials are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 grievance-retaliation claim when the evidence permits a finding that retaliation caused the challenged custody decision.

Higgins v. Morris · filed 2016-12-12

However, “[a]n action motivated by retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable, even if the act, when taken for a different reason, might have been legitimate.” 15 There is a genuine dispute as to a material fact, namely whether the actions were retaliatory or based only on legitimate factors.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Richard Turay, Andre Young, V Al Nerio, Mary Reger · filed 2016-12-13

We hold that Turay has not shown that there is a clearly established constitutional right that prohibits a detention facility from temporarily restricting a civil detainee’s telephone access without notice, a hearing, or an appeal process in order to address allegations of harassing telephone calls. Accordingly, we hold that the SCC employees are entitled to qualified immunity from Turay’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 damages claim against prison officials.

Parkell v. Senato · filed 2016-12-13

Following the July 26, 2016 memorandum opinion and order, only the § 1983 claims remain pending. ... For the following reasons, the court will deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and will deny plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.

Section 1983 does not protect officers through qualified immunity when the facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Catledge v. City of Chicago · filed 2016-12-13

That probable cause was-so lacking in this case—at least if the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Catledge— also forecloses the defendants’ reliance on their defense of qualified immunity. On this question we disagree with the district court. A police officer loses the shield of qualified immunity if the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate that the officer’s conduct constituted a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Government officials may raise qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, and the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing they are not entitled to it.

Angie Hall v. Katrice Sweet · filed 2016-12-16

Government officials may raise qualified immunity as a defense to a § 1983 action. Once raised, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the circumstances at issue.

Coleman v. Utah State Charter School Board · filed 2016-12-16

No clearly established right protects a private board member of a charter school from regulation by government agencies. ... The district court, therefore, was correct to hold that the State Charter Board members were entitled to qualified immunity, and to disallow Coleman’s proposed amended complaint.

At the pleading stage, a defendant sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the complaint alleges conduct that violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Jones v. Skolnik · filed 2016-12-16

Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. When we address the issue of qualified immunity at the pleading stage, we ask whether the complaint "allege[s] facts sufficient to support [a] claim[] that [the defendant’s] conduct violated [the plaintiff’s] clearly established constitutional rights."

An officer sued under Section 1983 for an investigatory stop is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer had arguable reasonable suspicion.

Montanez v. Carvajal · filed 2016-12-19

Although a police officer who conducts an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment, he is nevertheless immune from civil liability if he' had arguable reasonable suspicion.

A plaintiff facing qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim must show that the official violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time.

Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department · filed 2016-12-19

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) that the defendant’s actions violated his or her constitutional or statutory rights; and (ii) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

In a § 1983 damages claim against an officer who sought a warrant, qualified immunity applies when a reasonable officer would not have clearly understood that omitted information was material to probable cause.

Leaver v. Shortess · filed 2016-12-21

In the context of a § 1983 damages claim against the of- ficer who sought the warrant, this inquiry accounts for the availability of qualified immunity. That is, we ask whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that the omit- ted fact was material to the probable-cause determination.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when precedent gave them fair warning that retaliating against subpoenaed grand jury testimony was unconstitutional.

Carlson v. Beemer · filed 2016-12-21

A Section 1983 plaintiff need not produce a directly analogous case to prove that a right is clearly established, but must identify “existing precedent” which places the “constitutional question beyond debate.” ... Neither Kane nor Duecker is entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show a constitutional violation to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity.

Orr v. Copeland · filed 2016-12-22

Because the heirs have failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation, we hold that they have failed to satisfy their burden of showing that Copeland is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for false arrest on officers who had arguable probable cause and are entitled to qualified immunity.

Adams v. City of New York · filed 2016-12-22

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the false arrest claims because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Adams for “makfing] unreasonable noise” in violation of NYPL § 240.20(2).

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

Edmond v. Winters · filed 2016-12-22

Even if the application of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act to Edmond violated the ex post facto clause, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not clearly established at the time Edmond was required to register as a sex offender in Arkansas.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that clearly established law put the officer on notice that the challenged conduct was unlawful.

Belsito Communications, Inc. v. Decker · filed 2016-12-23

All we need say is that Blackden has not met his burden of showing that clearly-established law in August 2010 precluded a reasonable trooper from believing the exigent-circumstances exception applied in this situation. And it is on that basis alone that we affirm the judge's qualified-immunity ruling on this claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the officer allows a police dog to keep biting a compliant arrestee despite clearly established limits on force.

Cooper v. Brown · filed 2016-12-27

Cooper’s right was clearly established. Our caselaw makes certain that once an arrestee stops resisting, the degree of force an officer can employ is reduced.

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Rossiter v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2016-12-29

We accordingly find no consensus of authority that leveraging a claim against a specific union member facing good faith disciplinary action in an effort to settle internal police affairs implicates a clearly established constitutional right. What the Deputy Commissioner attempted to resolve by tethering Rossiter’s case to resolution of union opposition to the Disciplinary Code may not be Hoyle, but it was not established as unconstitutional when it occurred. Therefore, Ramsey and the Department are entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse the decision of the District Court and remand this case for it to enter judgment in their favor.

A subordinate who follows a superior’s allegedly retaliatory hiring directive is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the subordinate’s liability is not clearly established.

Muhammad v. Hall · filed 2017-01-04

But this lack of precedent also means that the law is not clearly established, so that Ms. Hall would be entitled to the protection of qualified immunity on this claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity on an unlawful arrest claim when undisputed facts establish probable cause for the arrest.

Pegg v. Grant Herrnberger · filed 2017-01-04

Thus, Herrnberger did not violate the Fourth Amendment and he is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as a matter of law.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Clark Ex Rel. Estate of Burkinshaw v. Bowcutt · filed 2017-01-05

In sum, we hold that Deputy Bowcutt was entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying him summary judgment.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of negating a qualified-immunity defense.

Mathews v. City of San Antonio, Texas · filed 2017-01-06

But it is well- established that Mathews, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of negating the qualified-immunity defense.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 state created danger claim when a jury could find that the officer’s affirmative acts increased a person’s risk of private violence and violated a clearly established due process right.

Nelson v. City of Madison Heights · filed 2017-01-09

Officer Wolowiec asserts that he has qualified immunity from Nelson’s “state created danger” claim under § 1983. ... Accordingly, the district court properly denied Officer Wolowiec’s summary judgment motion because a reasonable jury could find that, under the state created danger theory of liability, he engaged in affirmative acts that increased Hilliard’s risk of exposure to private acts of violence, which deprived Hilliard of her clearly established Due Process right to personal security and bodily integrity.

A Section 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of negating a qualified-immunity defense.

Mathews v. City of San Antonio, Texas · filed 2017-01-09

But it is well-established that Mathews, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of negating the qualified-immunity defense.

Section 1983 protects an officer through qualified immunity unless the officer’s conduct violates clearly established law in the particular circumstances.

White v. Pauly · filed 2017-01-09

The petition is now granted, and the judgment is vacated: Officer White did not violate clearly established law on the record described by the Court of Appeals panel.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Browder v. Casaus · filed 2017-01-11

To overcome Casaus’s claim of qualified immunity, the Browders must show that (1) Casaus violated their substantive due process rights and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Casaus’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the officer’s mistake about the law was objectively unreasonable.

MacKey v. Meyer · filed 2017-01-11

Second, it was objectively unreasonable for Meyer to think Mackey was obstructing or intimidating individuals based on the information relayed by the dispatcher in combination with what he witnessed upon arriving on the scene. We thus conclude that Meyer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the evidence available to the officer does not make a violation of clearly established rights apparent.

Allin v. City of Springfield · filed 2017-01-11

We reverse the district court’s denial of Barr’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and direct the district court to grant the motion.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions during a medical emergency are objectively reasonable and do not violate clearly established rights.

Ames v. King County · filed 2017-01-13

We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Appellee’s excessive force and unlawful search claims because we conclude the deputies’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of the urgent need to deliver life-saving care to an overdose victim, and to ensure the safety of everyone at the scene.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the undisputed facts show that his use of force was objectively reasonable.

Jones v. Gross · filed 2017-01-13

We therefore hold that, on the undisputed facts, Gross’s use of lethal force was objectively reasonable and, therefore, Gross is entitled to qualified immunity.

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish that the allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time.

Scott ex rel. B.P. v. Mid-Del Schools Board of Education · filed 2017-01-17

Specifically, while the Court finds McGuire did violate B.P.’s Substantive Due Process right, the Court further finds that plaintiffs provide no authority that would have clearly established that at the time McGuire allegedly physically and verbally assaulted B.P. in the bathroom stall, McGuire reasonably would have understood that his actions violated B.P.’s Substantive Due Process right. Therefore, the Court finds that McGuire is entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim, and that plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim against McGuire, in his individual capacity, should be dismissed.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 damages claims when the right at issue was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Barboza v. D'Agata · filed 2017-01-18

Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from § 1983 claims for money damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Davidson v. City of Opelika, Alabama · filed 2017-01-17

Davidson has failed to establish that Hancock violated his constitutional rights, so we need not examine whether those rights were clearly established. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Hancock on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer with arguable probable cause to seize and transport a person may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 false imprisonment claim.

May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia · filed 2017-01-19

We similarly conclude that Officer Allen is entitled to qualified immunity on May’s § 1983 false imprisonment claim.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, a material factual dispute about whether the suspect posed a threat can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Hatcher v. City of Grand Prairie · filed 2017-01-19

A similar material factual dispute exists here. If Hatcher was bent over, squinting, wiping pepper spray from his eyes, and slowly walking away from all the officers, then it would be unreasonable for Bement to believe that he posed a threat. Accordingly, Hatcher’s Estate has presented a genuine dispute of material fact, precluding summary judgment.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Garry Rose v. Sherman · filed 2017-01-20

Because Rose did not demonstrate a constitutional violation, Sherman and Burge were entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer who forces a person to the ground without provocation during an arrest is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim.

Jelsma v. Knox County, Tenn. · filed 2017-01-20

Accordingly, we reject Officer Cox’s argument and hold that his actions—as alleged by Jelsma—were contrary to clearly established law at the time of the arrest.

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

Estate of Timothy Devine v. Fusaro · filed 2017-01-23

We acknowledge the tragic circumstances of this case; nevertheless, because the law afforded the defendant officers no “fair and clear warning” that their conduct might violate Devine’s constitutional rights, we affirm the qualified-immunity-based judgment.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s account creates a factual question about whether an officer violated a clearly established right.

Bohannon v. Town of Monterey, Tenn. · filed 2017-01-24

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 require an alleged deprivation of a federal right by someone acting under color of state or territorial law. ... Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected by qualified immunity where “their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.” ... Where that testimony creates a factual question regarding the violation of constitutional rights, it is enough to defeat summary judgment.

Government officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 may raise qualified immunity as a defense.

Estate of Simpson v. Yellowstone County · filed 2017-01-24

Where a plaintiff states a valid cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, government officials sued in their individual capacities may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

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

Ehlers v. Dirkes · filed 2017-01-25

The law did not clearly establish in December 2010 that the use of an arm bar in this context constitutes excessive force. ... Thus, the law was not clearly established, and Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Batiz v. M.D. Brown · filed 2017-01-25

Detullio is protected by qualified immunity. Challenger concedes that there is no caselaw considering whether “refusing to provide the name and pedigree information of another is a violation of [the] statute.” App. 22.

An official is immune from § 1983 damages for a politically motivated job reassignment if a reasonable official could have understood that the position was outside the First Amendment's protection.

Lopez-Erquicia v. Weyne-Roig · filed 2017-01-25

That, in turn, means that Weyne is ... immune to a federal claim for damages under § 1983, even if the reorganization was targeted at López because of her political affiliation.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 damages liability when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Nelson v. Josh Henthorn · filed 2017-01-26

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, shielding government officials from liability for civil damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... On the facts presented, we conclude that Henthorn did not violate Nelson’s Eighth Amendment rights and is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer seeking qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim on a motion to dismiss must show that arguable probable cause is clear from the complaint.

Lumpkin v. Brehm · filed 2017-01-27

And because Defendants have raised qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they must demonstrate that facts establishing arguable probable cause are “clear from the face of the [SAC].” Rahman v. Schriro, 22 F.Supp.3d 305, 316 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit can protect officers from one claim even when another claim proceeds.

Anderson v. Neyrinck · filed 2017-01-30

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by Michelle Anderson, Davenport Police Department officers Andy Neyrinck and Scott Crowe appeal an order of the district court denying them qualified immunity. ... First, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Neyrinck qualified immunity on Anderson’s unlawful-arrest claim. ... By contrast, we conclude that the court erred in denying Crowe and Neyrinck qualified immunity on Anderson’s excessive-force claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when their use of force reasonably responds to resistance they perceive.

Jackson v. Washtenaw Cnty. · filed 2017-01-31

Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the actions taken by Defendants were reasonable responses to the resistance (real or perceived) made by Jackson, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity.

An officer who seeks an arrest warrant on an affidavit lacking facts to establish probable cause is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim.

Fry v. Robinson · filed 2017-01-31

Consequently, Robinson seeking the arrest warrants on the basis of such bare bones affidavits violated Fry’s right to be free from false arrest and precludes qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when established law gives them fair warning that ignoring a threatened or ongoing detainee assault violates the Constitution.

Kozar v. Munoz · filed 2017-01-31

But for qualified immunity purposes, the distinction makes no difference; a detainee’s right to be free from deliberate indifference was clearly established under both sets of circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave fair warning that the officer's conduct was unconstitutional.

Alfano v. Lynch · filed 2017-02-01

It follows that — contrary to the district court's view — the ... qualified immunity defense was not available to Lynch.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Kulkay v. Roy · filed 2017-02-02

Without a plausible constitutional claim, Kulkay fails the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis. ... We conclude the individual defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that their arrest and prosecution lacked probable cause.

Garcia v. Escalante · filed 2017-02-02

For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court.

Qualified immunity does not shield a sheriff from a § 1983 First Amendment claim when the sheriff is not entitled to that defense under the clearly established law governing the claim.

Dunn v. Millirons · filed 2017-02-01

We have reviewed the claims raised in the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that Sheriff Millirons is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official sued for damages under Section 1983 has qualified immunity unless the official violates clearly established federal law.

Fogle v. Palomino · filed 2017-02-06

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity for government officers and employees, Mr. Palomino is protected from financial liability as long as he did not violate clearly established federal law. ... Mr. Palomino is entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff facing a qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 suit bears the burden of showing that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Poullard v. Toce · filed 2017-02-08

However, Poullard has the burden of rebutting Toce’s qualified immunity defense. See Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). To do so, he must show that Toce violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

In a § 1983 suit, qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Osborne v. Georgiades · filed 2017-02-08

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

An officer sued under § 1983 for unlawful arrest is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the suspect committed an offense.

Childers v. Ed Iglesias · filed 2017-02-09

Moreover, the Defendants are “entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer in [their] position could have believed that, in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of which [they were] aware, there was a fair probability” that Childers committed an offense—namely, interfering with a police officer’s official duties. ... Based on this precedent, a reasonable officer could have believed that there was a fair probability that Childers violated Texas Penal Code § 38.15 by failing to comply with Iglesias’s instruction to move the truck.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive-force claim when officers reasonably perceive a serious threat and use deadly force in response.

Henderson v. City of Woodbury · filed 2017-02-09

Since the officers had probable cause to believe Mark continued to pose a threat, their second use of deadly force was reasonable, and qualified immunity bars Tawana’s claim.

Disputed facts that determine whether officers had reasonable suspicion can defeat a qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim at summary judgment.

Charles Beal, Jr. v. Beller · filed 2017-02-10

The existence of these disputed facts is also enough to defeat the Detectives’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not apply to claims for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Gerlich v. Leath · filed 2017-02-13

Qualified immunity does not apply to claims for injunctive relief, however.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim against an official must overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of a clearly established right and objectively unreasonable conduct.

Kitt v. Bailey · filed 2017-02-14

Because McCreary invoked the defense of qualified immunity, Kitt must also negate that defense by pleading facts to show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time of the incident and that, in light of that clearly established law, the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable.

Prison officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Norwood v. Cate · filed 2017-02-15

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. ... In 2008, prison officials did not violate clearly established law by instituting a temporary lockdown in response to a genuine emergency.

In a § 1983 suit, the court decides qualified immunity after a plaintiff’s verdict, using the jury’s findings to resolve disputed facts relevant to immunity.

Jackson v. Tellado · filed 2017-02-15

Following the procedure outlined by the Second Circuit in Stephenson v. Doe, 332 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2003), the Court presented the questions of liability to the jury, and reserved the question of qualified immunity for the Court to decide post-trial if there was a verdict in Plaintiffs favor.

Officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Carey Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green · filed 2017-02-16

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009).

Section 1983 claims against police officers are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Thompson v. Howard · filed 2017-02-17

Accordingly, we cannot say that it was clearly established that Howard’s decision to fire at Thompson involved excessive force. Qualified immunity applies in exactly such circumstances.

An official sued for damages under § 1983 lacks qualified immunity when a reasonable official would have known that firing a career employee without a hearing violated clearly established due process rights.

Rodriguez-Cortes v. del Capitolio · filed 2017-02-17

Knowing this well-established rule, and that plaintiffs job responsibilities did not resemble those of a policymaker, a reasonable defendant would have realized that plaintiff Rodriguez was a carefer employee, and thus, terminating him without a hearing deprives him of a property interest and violates his Due Process Clause rights. Defendants fail to satisfy either part of the qualified immunity test. Accordingly, the Court finds that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply to defendant Vazquez.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 liability when reasonable officers could disagree about whether the conduct was lawful.

Kendall v. Olsen · filed 2017-02-17

But where reasonable officers could disagree about whether an action is lawful—that is, where the-right has not yet been clearly established—the officer will not be liable for his mistake.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 arrest claim when probable cause supports the arrest and alleged defects in the warrant application would not change that finding.

Smith v. City of Fairburn, Georgia · filed 2017-02-15

We conclude that Detective Israel is entitled to qualified immunity from both Smith’s claim that she was arrested without probable cause and her claim that he omitted exculpatory information from his warrant application.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from declaratory or injunctive relief in Section 1983 suits.

Nguyen v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology · filed 2017-02-20

Because qualified immunity does not extend to suits for declaratory or injunctive relief, qualified immunity does not shield Stockstill from the claims of Plaintiffs insofar as they seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unreasonable seizure claim when the facts known to them and existing law support a reasonable belief that the arrest was constitutional.

Rusty Holloway v. Lamar County · filed 2017-02-22

Because the deputies were neither “plainly incompetent” nor “knowingly violat[ing] the law,” the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

In a Section 1983 suit, a claim of qualified immunity does not bar discovery needed to resolve disputed facts.

Costa v. the County of Ventura · filed 2017-02-22

Under Anderson, the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity did not prohibit the district court from allowing the Estate to obtain discovery.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 suit when the officer reasonably misapprehends the governing law, even if the decision is constitutionally deficient.

Sherard v. Ketcham · filed 2017-02-24

Those instructions were not plainly erroneous because the instructions correctly stated the applicable legal standard. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (“Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted.”); C.B., 769 F.3d at 1016-19.

Section 1983 officers may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint sufficiently alleges that they could have intervened to prevent a violation and failed to do so.

Ledea v. Metro-Dade County Police Department · filed 2017-02-27

These allegations established the minimum facts necessary to state a claim that Ledea’s constitutional rights were violated by the officers’ failure to intervene. ... Thus, the district court did not err in denying the officers qualified immunity and we affirm.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action may require factual development when the complaint leaves material facts about the officers’ conduct unresolved.

Irish v. State of ME · filed 2017-03-01

We cannot conclude at this very early stage of the proceedings that, in consequence of our decision in Rivera, the plaintiffs either failed to state a substantive due process claim or that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show an arrest without a warrant or probable cause in violation of a clearly established right.

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino · filed 2017-03-03

On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

An officer can receive qualified immunity on a Section 1983 unlawful arrest claim even without probable cause if the plaintiff cannot show that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Youbyoung Park v. Gaitan · filed 2017-03-01

Therefore, we conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Park’s Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure and affirm the district court’s judgment on this alternative basis.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim against correctional officers when the evidence could show deliberate indifference to a detainee's serious medical need and the right was clearly established.

Dennis Ryan, Jr. v. Officer Mary Armstrong · filed 2017-03-07

It may be inferred on this record that defendants Armstrong and Culloton were deliberately indifferent to Harrell's objectively serious medical need. We conclude that the violated right alleged by the trustee was clearly established at the time of these actions. ... We therefore reverse the grant of qualified immunity to defendants Armstrong and Culloton on the trustee's deliberate indifference claims.

Material disputes about an officer’s conduct can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim.

R.N. b/n/f of P.N. and R.N. individually v. Rogan · filed 2017-03-08

Material factual disputes preclude summary judgment in this case as to whether Rogan violated R.N. and P.N.’s Fourth Amendment rights and whether Rogan is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows he shot an unarmed, nondangerous person.

Audry Releford, Jr. v. City of Houston · filed 2017-03-08

To the extent that Rosemon argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity under Releford’s version of the facts, we disagree. The Supreme Court established in 1985 that “[a] police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against sheriff’s officials.

Owens v. Butler · filed 2017-03-08

However, we conclude that the district court correctly held in the alternative that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can shield a state official from damages liability under Section 1983 when the official did not violate a clearly established right.

Bradley v. West Chester University of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education · filed 2017-03-08

In this First Amendment retaliation action, Defendant Mark Mixner moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff Colleen M. Bradley’s claim arising under Section 1983. ... Mixner seeks summary judgment on the ground that he is entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with Mixner and the motion will be granted.

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

Newkirk v. Enzor · filed 2017-03-08

Consistent with that controlling Fourth Circuit precedent, the Court holds Mr. Enzor entitled to qualified immunity regarding Mrs. New-kirk’s retaliatory arrest claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful arrest claim when probable cause for arrest was reasonably arguable.

Fontana v. City of Auburn · filed 2017-03-09

The district court correctly held that Nordenger is entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim. Given the facts known to Nordenger—including the threatening nature of Plaintiff’s statements, their proximity in time to the Lakewood killings, the reliability of the named citizen informant who was interviewed by officers, and the reports of Plaintiff’s post-statement conduct—it was "reasonably arguable that there was probable cause for arrest." Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).

A defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the jury finds facts establishing qualified immunity.

Montero v. Nandlal · filed 2017-03-09

If the jury finds facts that establish the qualified immunity defense, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed material facts prevent the court from deciding whether the officers are entitled to it.

Marks v. Smith · filed 2017-03-10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment with respect to the qualified immunity of Corporal Amore Neck, Deputy Bryan Steinert, and Deputy Samuel Hyneman in their individual capacities is DENIED.

Section 1983 does not shield officers through qualified immunity when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Burley v. Miller · filed 2017-03-13

When viewing the record in the light most favorable to Burley, it is clear that he has shown that the right to be free from exposure to severe weather and temperatures was clearly established at the time of the incident alleged in the complaint. Defendants Miller and Heilman, therefore, are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages under Section 1983 when their conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time.

Surratt v. McClarin · filed 2017-03-14

But qualified immunity insulates those 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.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... Accordingly, we cannot say that the officers acted objectively unreasonably in light of clearly established law.

In a § 1983 excessive-force claim, an official acting within discretionary authority shifts the qualified-immunity burden to the plaintiff.

Greer v. Ivey · filed 2017-03-14

It is undisputed that at the time of the complained of conduct, Haman and Canela were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority. ... Therefore, Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the two-part inquiry.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when a factual dispute remains over whether they pressed their weight on a subdued detainee for a significant period.

Zelaya v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2017-03-15

The alleged excessive force violated clearly established law. In Drummond ex rel Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2003), we held that qualified immunity was not appropriate when a suspect was subdued and handcuffed, yet officers “pressed their weight onto his neck and torso, and maintained that pressure for a significant period of time.” Id. at 1063. It was thus clearly established that continuing to press weight onto a detainee for a significant period of time after the detainee is subdued violates the Fourth Amendment. Although the officers in this case did not apply force to Solano for as long a period as involved in Drummond, the video of the incident creates at least a disputed issue of material fact whether they did so for a significant period of time after Solano ceased resisting.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause supported the charge.

Tucker v. Decker · filed 2017-03-16

Because the phrase “reasonable cause to believe” has not been authoritatively interpreted by the Vermont courts, reasonable officers confronted with the knowledge attributed to Decker in the complaint could disagree as to whether there was probable cause to issue a citation. Tucker pointed to the phrase as supporting her own determination not to report immediately the allegation at issue here, which had been presented to her as not credible; but Decker’s interpretation was not unreasonable, either. Decker is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and the claim was properly dismissed by the District Court.

A plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit through a scope-of-authority exception when state law did not clearly establish that the official exceeded his authority.

Stanley v. Gallegos · filed 2017-03-17

So limiting the possible scope-of-authority exception is as far as this court need go to resolve the appeal before us, because New Mexico law did not clearly establish that Defendant exceeded his authority as district attorney.

A plaintiff cannot recover under § 1983 from an official entitled to qualified immunity; allegations that plausibly rebut an indictment’s presumption of probable cause can allow the claim to proceed.

Clark v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-03-14

Section 1983 provides a remedy against “any person” who, under color of state law, deprives another of rights protected by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, a plaintiff may not recover under § 1983 if the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff seeking damages under Section 1983 must defeat qualified immunity by showing that an official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Ingram v. Shipman-Meyer · filed 2017-03-20

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation.

Qualified immunity can bar § 1983 claims against government officials sued in their individual capacities.

Player v. University of Idaho · filed 2017-03-20

To the extent that Player sued any defendant in his individual capacity, the claims are barred by qualified immunity.

An officer sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Petrello v. City of Manchester, et al. · filed 2017-03-21

For these reasons, Officer Brandreth is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when officers had arguable probable cause.

Arroyo v. City of New York · filed 2017-03-21

As with § 1983 false arrest claims, qualified immunity precludes § 1983 malicious prosecution claims where there was arguable probable cause.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive force claim when it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Weldon v. Conlee · filed 2017-03-21

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Weldon’s excessive force claim because it would not have been clear to every reasonable ... officer that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Huber v. Coulter · filed 2017-03-21

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Huber’s false arrest claim because it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed their conduct was lawful.

Felton Matthews, Jr. v. Hessler · filed 2017-03-21

The district court correctly held that William Ambridge and James G. Cox are entitled to qualified immunity as to Matthews’ First Amendment claim.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity when a genuine dispute exists over whether they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Earl Bond, Jr. v. Miller · filed 2017-03-21

The district court properly denied Miller and Florin’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Bond, Bond raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Miller and Florin violated Bond’s constitutional right to adequate medical care, and that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.