42 U.S.C. § 1983

An individual defendant in a § 1983 suit is not entitled to qualified immunity when the defendant violates a clearly established constitutional right.

T.D. v. Patton · filed 2017-08-28

T.D. sued Kelcey Patton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his right to substantive due process. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the facts, taken in the. light most favorable to T.D., show Ms. Patton violated T.D.’s clearly established substantive due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit depends on whether the facts establish a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established to a reasonable officer.

Scott v. Deleon · filed 2017-08-29

We must decide whether the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Scott, established a constitutional violation, and whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in Deleon’s position would have known that his actions were unlawful. ... Having reviewed the record in light of this standard, we conclude that the district court appropriately denied Deleon qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Davenport v. Borough of Homestead · filed 2017-08-29

There is an additional and distinct basis on which we must reverse the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity to Schweitzer, Matakovich, and Kennedy—their alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that sufficiently specific precedent clearly established that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

Shafer v. County of Santa Barbara · filed 2017-08-29

Because Shafer fails to identify sufficiently specific constitutional precedents to alert Deputy Padilla that his particular conduct was unlawful, Deputy Padilla is entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit must show that an official violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Biggs v. Edwin Legrand, III · filed 2017-08-30

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct. ... Therefore, Biggs cannot satisfy her burden to demonstrate that reasonable officers in Defendants’ position would have been on notice that their actions violated her constitutional rights.

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

Biggs ex rel. Biggs v. Legrand · filed 2017-08-30

Put another way, she has not shown a clearly established constitutional right to continued confinement in a state mental health facility.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts could show that the officer had time to avoid a slowly approaching vehicle without using deadly force.

Rand v. Lavoie · filed 2017-09-05

Thus, even on the theory that Lawrence’s vehicle was moving toward Lavoie when he fired, Lavoie would not be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage, and Rand’s claim survives.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit must move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) to preserve a qualified immunity defense for appeal after trial.

Hung Lam v. City of San Jose · filed 2017-09-05

To preserve the determination of qualified immunity, a defendant must make a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a).

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

Ransom v. Sherman · filed 2017-09-06

Sherman is entitled to qualified immunity if he had arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 First Amendment petition claim based on excluding members of the public from non-public government meetings.

Lee v. Driscoll · filed 2017-09-07

We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the individual defendants with respect to the Lees’ § 1983 claim based on the First Amendment right to petition, and remand the matter for further proceedings.

When defendants support a qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment, the plaintiff must produce competent evidence to overcome it.

Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections · filed 2017-09-07

The district court’s dismissal of Simmons’s § 1983 claims likewise does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Because the defendants asserted their entitlement to qualified immunity in a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden shifted to Simmons to come forward with competent summary judgment evidence showing that the defendants were ... deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects officers from unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution claims when a reasonable officer could believe the warrant materials established probable cause.

Goodman v. City of Los Angeles Police Department · filed 2017-09-07

Regardless of whether this is true, the question is not whether the magistrate actually reviewed the affidavit but whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the affidavit and incorporated documents established probable cause. ... This is sufficient for a reasonable officer to believe probable cause existed.

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

Malone v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2017-09-08

We conclude that Thouvenell is entitled to qualified immunity because Malone failed to show that Thouvenell violated clearly established law.

Officials sued under Section 1983 for politically motivated employment decisions are entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established in the specific context.

Houlihan v. City of Chicago · filed 2017-09-08

Although the First Amendment typically prohibits government employers from making politically motivated employment decisions, a court’s qualified-immunity analysis cannot simply rely on this general principle; rather, the court must determine whether there was a clear violation in the specific context of the case.

Officers sued under § 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a genuine dispute that they violated clearly established law.

Hendershot v. Slovacek · filed 2017-09-08

To overcome qualified immunity, Hendershot had to show a genuine dispute as to whether the officers “violate[d] clearly established law.”

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

Marriott v. USD 204, Bonner Springs-Edwardsville · filed 2017-09-08

Plaintiffs have not cited any authority that would clearly establish a right to not be video recorded in a public school classroom. For these reasons, the court finds defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when the constitutional right they violated was clearly established at the time.

Moody v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd. · filed 2017-09-11

We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on the Fifth Amendment claim, and hold that the right articulated in Moody I was clearly established at the time of the violation.

A Section 1983 unlawful-entry claim may proceed past summary judgment when a reasonable jury could find that the officer violated clearly established rights, defeating qualified immunity.

Dennis Brenay, Sr. v. Schartow · filed 2017-09-12

All that matters is that, accepting the account most favorable to the Brenays, a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Sierras violated the Brenays’ clearly established rights by entering their home without any warrant, consent, or exigency. Whether he actually did so “is the epitome of a triable issue of fact, one over which our authority recedes and the jury’s takes over.” Stonebumer, 716 F.3d at 930 (citation omitted). We therefore reverse the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Sierras on the Brenays’ unlawful-entry claim.

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

Woodward v. City of Tucson · filed 2017-09-15

We conclude that reasonable officers in Defendants’ positions would not have known that shooting Duncklee violated a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity protects an official from § 1983 damages when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.

White v. Busboom · filed 2017-09-15

Accordingly, the court erred in failing to determine that Busboom was entitled to qualified immunity on White’s claim that he was denied predeprivation due process.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Hansen v. Black · filed 2017-09-18

Even assuming a constitutional violation, Trooper Black is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts could establish that officers violated a clearly established right.

Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin · filed 2017-09-18

Because the facts proffered by the Estate could demonstrate a violation of Orlowski’s clearly estab- lished Eighth Amendment rights, factual disputes prevent a finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity applies to a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation and shows that the defendant’s specific conduct violated clearly established federal law.

Merritt Sharp, III v. County of Orange · filed 2017-09-19

Qualified immunity is proper unless Plaintiffs establish that (1) the deputies committed a constitutional violation, and (2) the deputies’ specific conduct violated “clearly established” federal law.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against an officer when a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would not have understood that the conduct violated a constitutional right.

Celona v. Erickson · filed 2017-09-19

Even if I were to find that Chief Erickson’s denial of Christopher’s application for an LTC violated his Second Amendment rights, Christopher’s claim against Chief Erickson is barred because Chief Erickson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim for a warrantless arrest when probable cause was arguable or subject to legitimate question.

Wilber v. Curtis · filed 2017-09-20

We have explained that, with respect to a § 1983 claim that seeks to hold a police officer liable for making a warrantless arrest without probable cause, "if the presence of probable cause ... is arguable or subject to legitimate question, qualified immunity will attach."

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive-force claim alleging that guards gratuitously abused a detainee, because the prohibition is clearly established.

Williams v. Stauche · filed 2017-09-21

They assert that qualified immunity provides an alternative basis to uphold the dismissal of Williams’s excessive-force claim, but this contention is frivolous. That guards cannot gratuitously abuse prisoners is clearly established.

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

Estate of Lopez Ex Rel. Lopez v. Gelhaus · filed 2017-09-22

Here, taking the facts as we must regard them on this interlocutory appeal, a reasonable jury could conclude that Gelhaus deployed excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the alleged violation of Andy’s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established at the time of Gelhaus’s conduct.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when the court would have to resolve disputed testimony to grant it.

Richardson v. Matt Mahon · filed 2017-09-26

Determining the credibility of the witnesses is the purview of the jury. We further conclude that the Appellees are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim on summary judgment.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on this § 1983 claim at summary judgment on the record before the court.

Cox v. Village of Pleasantville · filed 2017-09-26

But at this stage, the Court cannot conclude on the record before it that Hess is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim arising out of Hess’s shooting of the vehicle.

Section 1983 permits an excessive force claim against an officer to proceed when material facts about the force remain disputed and the right was clearly established.

Rokusek v. State of South Dakota · filed 2017-09-26

The Court denies Jansen qualified immunity because there is a genuine dispute of material fact whether the type and amount of force used by Jansen was objectively reasonable in light of all of the relevant factors, and Rokusek’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force was clearly established.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit bears the burden of showing that the defense does not apply.

Sargent v Town of Hudson · filed 2017-09-27

Where, as here, the moving party raises a qualified immunity defense, the nonmoving party has the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply.

Section 1983 claims by third parties against bankruptcy trustees are subject to qualified immunity when trustees act in their official capacity without violating clearly established law.

Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC) · filed 2017-09-28

We thus hold that bankruptcy trustees are government officials, entitled under Harlow to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims by third parties when they act in their official capacity in a manner that is not contrary to clearly established law.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit applies to individual-capacity claims for money damages, but not official-capacity claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Thompson v. Dooley · filed 2017-09-28

Thompson is correct, the qualified immunity defense applies only to the individual capacity claims against defendants for money damages; it does not affect Thompson’s official capacity claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when material factual disputes preclude its resolution.

Estate of Robert Ethan Saylor v. Rochford · filed 2017-09-29

The deputies filed this interlocutory appeal, challenging the district court’s qualified immunity ruling. Upon reviewing the record, however, we cannot conclude that the district court erred in determining that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. We therefore affirm the court’s ruling on this issue.

Qualified immunity protects officers from damages on Section 1983 claims when their conduct violates no clearly established right.

Jones v. Walsh · filed 2017-09-29

Officers “enjoy a qualified immunity from suit that protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

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

Thomas v. Town of Salisbury · filed 2017-09-30

Harrington is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions, if any, taken in response to Thomas’ report regarding Sullivan’s conduct.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have known that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Cranford v. Kluttz · filed 2017-09-30

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their enforcement of the Festival Rules.

An officer may obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment.

Isayeva v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department · filed 2017-10-02

Tereschenko’s wife, Diana Isayeva, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other claims, excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied summary judgment for Deputy Barry. We reverse and remand, holding that Deputy Barry is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer who had probable cause to believe a suspect committed an offense is protected from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Shew v. Horvath · filed 2017-10-04

Horvath is entitled to qualified immunity because he had probable cause to believe that the Shews had committed mortgage fraud as defined by the Florida statute.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against officials whose conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Maloney v. Ryan · filed 2017-10-04

The district court properly dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity Maloney’s requests for damages on his claims stemming from the provision of breakfast after dawn, but before sunrise, during Ramadan.

A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lorie Potter v. The Estate of Lucius Van Peavy · filed 2017-10-05

Finally, the district court was correct to hold that the Equal Protection Clause’s protection against race discrimination in public employment is clearly established, so Williford is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Jail officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when they are not deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Salter Ex Rel. Estate of Salter v. Mitchell · filed 2017-10-05

We find that the Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s constitutional rights, and thus Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff’s right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Scott v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2017-10-05

The arrest was unconstitutional, but Scott’s right was not clearly established in January 2009. The district court correctly determined that Officer Hensley is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit cannot obtain qualified immunity when existing precedent would give a reasonable officer fair warning that the alleged conduct violates clearly established constitutional law.

McKenney v. Mangino · filed 2017-10-06

We conclude, without serious question, that the precedents identified by the district court and those discussed supra gave the defendant fair warning that, if the facts were as the plaintiff claimed them to be, his use of deadly force against McKenney offended clearly established Fourth Amendment law — and an objectively reasonable officer would have realized as much.

Section 1983 does not give prison officials qualified immunity for punishing a prisoner’s threat to sue when the right was clearly established.

Entler v. Gregoire · filed 2017-10-06

Therefore, on the papers before us, Appellees are not entitled to qualified immunity for Entler’s threats to initiate civil litigation.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false-arrest claim when he had arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Taylor-Williams v. Rembert · filed 2017-10-10

In sum, Officer Rembert is entitled to qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause to arrest Ms. Taylor-Williams for trespass.

Officers sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Brown v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2017-10-10

We decide this appeal based on the clearly-established-law prong, and do not decide whether the officers violated Brown’s constitutional rights. ... For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to the officers on Brown’s individual-capacity claim and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the officers on this claim (that is, to grant them qualified immunity).

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the conduct violates no constitutional right or no clearly established law governs it.

Hamilton v. Louis Roberts, III · filed 2017-10-11

We agree that there was neither a constitutional violation nor any clearly established law governing this situation, and affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Deputy Smith.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated clearly established law.

McGuigan v. County of San Bernardino · filed 2017-10-12

Defendants-Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to McGuigan’s detention and the force used to effect McGuigan’s arrest.

A Section 1983 claim can survive a qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage when the alleged facts leave open a violation of clearly established law.

Brown v. Belt · filed 2017-10-13

Any pleading of a violation under Section 1983 has to overcome the qualified immunity defense. ... Therefore, the court cannot now say, as a matter of law, that Deputy Belt’s decision to engage in such conduct, and the ensuing consequences, were not outside the boundaries of clearly established law. See Green v. Throckmorton, 681 F.3d 853, 863 (6th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as to Count 3.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an arresting officer if a reasonable officer could have concluded that probable cause existed on the facts available at the time.

McCoy v. Housing Auth of New Orleans, et · filed 2017-10-18

In other words, “if a reasonable officer could have concluded that there was probable cause upon the facts then available to him, qualified immunity will apply.” 11 Because that is the case we have here, we find no error.

Officials performing discretionary functions have qualified immunity from individual § 1983 claims if their conduct does not violate clearly established rights a reasonable person would have known.

Patrick Atwater, Jr. v. Tucker · filed 2017-10-24

Official immunity “gives government officials performing discretionary functions complete protection from individual claims brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Atwater and Rutland did not violate any clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on Section 1983 claims when factual disputes leave open whether officers knowingly violated the law.

Murray v. City of New York · filed 2017-10-24

Defendants contend that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims. However, in view of the factual disputes as to whether the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff and impound the car and plaintiff’s allegations that the officers in the 47th Precinct had been engaging in a pattern of harassment against him for years and had planted the gun in the car, questions exist as to whether the officers knowingly violated the law (see Munafo v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 285 F3d 201, 210 [2d Cir 2002]).

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity for searching the wrong home when he made no reasonable effort to identify the target residence, even if another officer led the search.

Gerhart v. McLendon · filed 2017-10-25

An officer who makes no reasonable effort to correctly identify the place to be searched does not get immunity merely because someone else was leading the search.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against an arresting officer.

Butler v. Tremblay · filed 2017-10-26

The district court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Tremblay based on qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Gadd v. Campbell · filed 2017-10-26

In sum, because Gadd has not cited, nor have we found, any sufficiently analogous case that clearly establishes that Officer Campbell’s alleged conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he is entitled to qualified immunity from Gadd’s § 1983 claim against him.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim cannot be granted at the pleading stage when facts needed to assess the officer’s conduct remain unresolved.

Collick v. William Paterson University · filed 2017-10-26

We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that it could not grant qualified immunity to DeSimone on the Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when factual disputes prevent the court from determining whether the defendants knowingly or recklessly relied on a false confession.

Sanchez v. Hartley · filed 2017-10-26

For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motions are denied, and this case will be set for trial to resolve significant factual disputes that prevent the Court from applying qualified immunity.

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

Dunlap v. Anchorage Police Department · filed 2017-10-27

Instead, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that Henry is entitled to qualified immunity for Dunlap’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because any constitutional right violated by Henry was not clearly established at the time of Dunlap’s arrest.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted at summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when material facts remain disputed about whether officers intentionally withheld or manipulated key evidence.

Dufort v. City of New York · filed 2017-10-27

We conclude that it would be inappropriate to grant qualified immunity to these Defendants at the summary judgment stage. Dufort has established a dispute of material fact as to whether the Defendants intentionally withheld or manipulated key evidence during his arrest and prosecution.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful detention claim when no reasonable officer could believe probable cause justified continuing the detention.

Barnett v. MacArthur · filed 2017-10-30

Accordingly, MacArthur is not entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 unlawful detention claim.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when they reasonably rely on a nurse’s medical advice and have no reason to believe it is deficient.

Samuel McGaw, Jr. v. Sevier County, Tenn. · filed 2017-10-31

Defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not act with deliberate indifference to McGaw’s medical needs when they relied on what they reasonably ... believed to be appropriate advice from Nurse Sims.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false-arrest claim if the plaintiff substantially shows that the officer deliberately or recklessly misstated or omitted facts material to probable cause.

Zavatson v. City of Warren, Mich. · filed 2017-10-31

Put differently, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if a § 1983 plaintiff makes “(1) a substantial showing that [the officer] stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard ... for the truth and (2) that the allegedly false or omitted information was material to the finding of probable cause.” Id. (quoting Vakilian, 335 F.3d at 517)).

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity may turn on a factual dispute that a jury must resolve.

Korff v. City of Phoenix · filed 2017-10-31

Taking the evidence put forward on O’Brien’s behalf and, as we must, making all inferences from the record evidence in O’Brien’s favor, we conclude that a jury must resolve this critical factual dispute. ... This factual dispute is also central to the officers’ assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity and Korff’s state law negligence claim against the City of Phoenix.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the defendant violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Smith v. Anderson · filed 2017-10-31

For relief under section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity. See, e.g., Werner v. Wall, 836 F.3d 751, 758-9 (7th Cir. 2016). To do so, the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a clearly establish statutory or constitutional right. Id. Here, Smith cannot demonstrate that Anderson violated a clearly established constitutional right, even when we view the facts in the light most favorable to him.

Defendants in § 1983 actions may receive qualified immunity against claims that they violated a prisoner’s rights.

Clayborne v. Tecumseh Department of Corrections · filed 2017-11-01

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Nebraska inmate Robert Clayborne appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment, finding defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Clayborne’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his needs during a prison riot. Having carefully reviewed the record, and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law gave them notice that their conduct was unlawful.

Zion v. County of Orange · filed 2017-11-01

If a jury were to find that Higgins shot and/or stomped on Zion’s head after Zion no longer posed an immediate threat, Higgins would have been “on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). Defendants therefore aren’t entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent does not clearly establish that their use of force violates a constitutional right.

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah · filed 2017-11-01

For these reasons, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for excessive force.

A § 1983 claim against an officer can survive a qualified immunity motion to dismiss when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Quigley v. City of Huntington WV · filed 2017-11-02

But, from the facts alleged, Plaintiff could plausibly demonstrate the officer violated a clearly established right, and thus is not entitled to the protective cloaking of qualified immunity, at this stage.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff has not shown a violation of constitutional rights.

Reynolds v. Lewis County · filed 2017-11-03

The Coroner is entitled to qualified immunity as Reynolds has not shown a violation of his constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity does not bar a teacher’s § 1983 retaliation claim against school board members when the evidence supports a violation of her clearly established First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern.

Utter v. Colclazier · filed 2017-11-06

For purposes of qualified immunity, we resolve all factual disputes in favor of the party asserting the injury. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014). As noted, Ms. Campbell has presented evidence sufficient to establish her First Amendment rights were violated. Having rejected the district court’s first reason to deny qualified immunity, we also reject the latter.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 retaliation claim when established law gave the official fair warning that the plaintiff's reports were protected citizen speech.

Anderson v. Valdez · filed 2017-11-14

In this Court's view, guiding precedent rendered resolution of the narrow question posed by the second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry "beyond debate" in the present case, and gave anyone in Defendant's shoes the requisite "fair" and "reasonable" warning that Plaintiff's letters and complaint constituted citizen speech. ... The Court must therefore deny Defendant's appeal to qualified immunity.

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

Iocovello v. City of New York · filed 2017-11-14

Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Iocovello to the effect that Officer Francis had indeed seen the statements before the arrests, Office Francis nevertheless had arguable probable cause to arrest Iocovello based on King’s statement alone.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the evidence permits a finding that the officer shot a non-resisting suspect who made no threatening move, and clearly established law prohibited that force.

Gregory v. Miami-Dade County, Florida · filed 2017-11-15

Because the law was clearly established, Officer Perez is not entitled to qualified immunity to Gregory’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in Count II.

In a § 1983 suit, a district court denying qualified immunity must identify the relevant material facts and analyze each defendant’s conduct separately.

Reynolds v. Municipality of Norristown · filed 2017-11-16

In declining to extend qualified immunity, however, the District Court did not specify the relevant material facts or analyze those facts in the context of each legal claim made by the Appellants. Nor did the District Court conduct separate analyses for each individual seeking qualified immunity, although each defendant interacted with Reynolds in different ways and at different times throughout Reynolds’ detainment.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiffs’ evidence could show they used deadly force against a person who posed no immediate threat and received no warning.

Hensley Ex Rel. North Carolina v. Price · filed 2017-11-17

Because the use of force in such circumstances would be objectively unreasonable, we must affirm the district court’s summary judgment order denying the Deputies qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Mize v. Tseng · filed 2017-11-20

The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a warrantless home search violates clearly established rights, absent consent or another applicable exception.

Carpenter v. Perry · filed 2017-11-21

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless search of the Carpenter home on May 13, 2014.

Section 1983 permits a malicious prosecution claim against an officer when the complaint plausibly alleges a Fourth Amendment violation and the elements of malicious prosecution; qualified immunity does not bar the claim if the alleged facts show no arguable probable cause.

Pierce v. Clayton County, Georgia · filed 2017-11-21

In addition, the Pierces have adequately alleged a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, and Detective Brashears is not entitled to qualified immunity at this early stage of the case.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim is determined by an objectively reasonable standard without regard to an officer’s subjective intent.

Neal v. Luedtke · filed 2017-11-21

The primary issue considered by the district court was the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity, which the court correctly recognized is determined using an “objectively reasonable” standard without regard for the officers’ subjective intent.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit when the evidence could show they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Scheetz v. Kaemingk · filed 2017-11-21

The court also reaffirms its prior ruling that “Scheetz has shown that the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, demonstrate he was deprived of a constitutional right, and that right was ... clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Docket 87 at 20. Thus, Summers and Van Vooren’s second motion for summary judgment is denied.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the claimed right was not clearly established in the specific circumstances they faced.

Lyons v. Vaught · filed 2017-11-22

In these circumstances, Lyons has failed to show, using the particularized inquiry required, that his right to make this speech in these circumstances was clearly established.

In a § 1983 suit, disputed facts material to an officer’s qualified immunity can preclude summary judgment.

Vann v. City of Southaven, Mississippi · filed 2017-11-22

Because there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the qualified-immunity determination as to one of the defendants, we AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND to the district court.

Section 1983 officials have qualified immunity unless every reasonable official would have understood that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Brooks v. Walsh · filed 2017-11-22

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brooks’ free exercise claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that it was unlawful to require Brooks to fill out a Faith Group Affiliation Declaration form in order to reinstate his participation in the Common Fare diet after Brooks’ voluntary withdrawal.

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

Taylor v. Ohio County Commission · filed 2017-11-28

Furthermore, since the right plaintiff claims under the First Amendment was not clearly established at the time of the violation, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 state-created danger claim when the complaint plausibly alleges actual knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm under a clearly established theory of liability.

Kedra v. Schroeter · filed 2017-11-28

Appellant brought a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Schroeter’s conduct had subjected her deceased son to a state-created danger in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. ... However, because obviousness of risk is relevant to proving actual knowledge and the allegations of the complaint here are more than sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Schroeter had such knowledge, we conclude the complaint adequately pleads a state-created danger claim under a then-clearly established theory of liability. We therefore will reverse the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings.

Qualified immunity may entitle prison medical staff to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim.

Spencer v. Garden · filed 2017-12-05

Exercising jurisdiction over the remainder of this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds as to Mr. Abbott and the two EMTs, Mr. Jensen and Mr. MacFarlane, and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment in their favor.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when relying on a search warrant was objectively unreasonable.

Trey Sims v. Labowitz · filed 2017-12-05

Here, the obvious, unconstitutional invasion of Sims’ right of privacy that was required to carry out the warrant rendered reliance on that warrant objectively unreasonable, thereby eliminating the protection that a search warrant typically would have afforded an executing officer.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from Section 1983 liability when the officer reasonably believes an armed suspect poses a threat.

Conde v. City of Atl. City · filed 2017-12-05

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Officer Smith because he is entitled to qualified immunity for his reasonable belief that Mack was armed and posed a threat during Smith's on foot pursuit of Mack.

A municipal board cannot invoke qualified immunity against a § 1983 damages claim.

Barna v. Board of School Directors of the Panther Valley School District · filed 2017-12-07

The District Court overlooked the Supreme Court’s precedent in Owen and improperly awarded qualified immunity to the Board.

A public-policy challenge to consent forms authorizing disclosure of personnel files does not defeat qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim.

Torrey v. New Jersey Department of Law a · filed 2017-12-07

Torrey answers that the consent forms are void as against public policy. He also challenges the District Court’s qualified immunity analysis for the same reason, disputing its reliance on the waivers in its reasoning. But Torrey’s public policy argument is unpersuasive.

Institutional defendants sued under § 1983 cannot claim qualified immunity.

Frudden v. Kayann Pilling · filed 2017-12-11

The Parent-Faculty Association (“PFA”) and the Washoe County School District (“WCSD”) are institutional rather than individual defendants and therefore do not have qualified ... immunity.

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

Kemp v. Liebel · filed 2017-12-11

Thus, Liebel did not violate clearly established law, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on officials when the asserted constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

J.M. v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. · filed 2017-12-13

The Court therefore holds the constitutional rights Plaintiff alleges the Individual Defendants violated were not clearly established at the time of Defendants' alleged misconduct, and the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's claims for violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful arrest claim at summary judgment when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, they lacked a reasonable basis to believe probable cause existed.

Banks v. City of Chicago · filed 2017-12-15

Taking Plaintiff’s version of the disputed facts as true, the Defendant officers knew that Bolton’s description of the suspected dealer did not match Plaintiff, and the only fact they had to support detaining Plaintiff was that they were in a high-crime area. ... Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim based on qualified immunity.

A prison official who responds reasonably to a known risk to an inmate may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim.

Wilson v. Falk · filed 2017-12-19

The district court, therefore, correctly held that Ms. Falk was entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Mr. Wilson’s § 1983 claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Trotter v. Shull · filed 2017-12-19

Here, we needn’t grapple with the merits of Trotter’s excessive-force claim because we are satisfied that, in any event, the law was not sufficiently clearly established to put Shull on notice that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. ... Thus, we hold that the district court correctly concluded that Shull is entitled to qualified immunity on Trotter’s excessive-force claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law.

Neuber v. Pritt · filed 2017-12-20

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

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity when the property right asserted against them was not clearly established.

Wilkerson v. University of North Texas Ex Rel. Board of Regents · filed 2017-12-20

The district court erred in denying the administrators qualified immunity against the § 1983 claim because Wilkerson did not have a clearly established property right.

In a § 1983 claim, once officials show they acted within their discretionary authority, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply.

Jackson v. McCurry · filed 2017-12-22

Plaintiffs do not challenge that Defendants acted within their discretionary authority when they committed the challenged actions. Thus, Plaintiffs must show that, under their version of the facts, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit requires an individual assessment of each official's conduct.

Walter Franklin, II v. Peterson · filed 2017-12-26

The Notice of Appeal states "All Defendants, in their official and individual capacities" appeal the district court's order denying qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the excessive force claim. However, qualified immunity is a personalized inquiry and courts are charged with evaluating the officials' conduct individually.

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

Latits v. Phillips · filed 2017-12-27

Caselaw existing at the time of the events, however, did not clearly establish the objective unreasonableness of Phillips’s actions in the circumstances of this case. Phillips is therefore entitled to qualified immunity and we must AFFIRM.

Officials sued individually under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Levine v. City of Eureka Springs, Arkansas · filed 2017-12-29

A corollary to this finding is that Mr. Berry and Mr. Featherstone are each entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Levine’s claims against them in their individual capacities.

Qualified immunity shields officers from Section 1983 seizure and malicious prosecution claims unless they are plainly incompetent or knowingly violate the law.

Steiger v. Hahn · filed 2018-01-03

Given that qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,” we have no cause to disturb the district court’s determination that these officers are immunized from trial and liability on Steiger’s seizure and malicious prosecution claims.

In a § 1983 foster care special relationship claim, an official is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the official’s conduct shocks the conscience.

Gutteridge v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2018-01-03

Even assuming the district court erred in failing to consider certain evidence and but for that error the district court would have concluded that the individual defendants abdicated their professional duties, the individual defendants would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity based on Gutteridge’s failure to demonstrate their conduct shocks the conscience. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the individual defendants on Gutteridge’s § 1983 claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the force used to complete an arrest is reasonable under the circumstances.

DeeAnne Horn v. Barron · filed 2018-01-04

He did not use any force intended to cause injury; rather, Horn’s injury was the unfortunate result of Officer Barron’s reasonable use of force. In light of the foregoing, the district court’s denial of Officer Barron’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is erroneous.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established; a court may resolve immunity on that ground alone.

Yeasin v. Durham · filed 2018-01-05

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Yeasin has failed to show that Dr. Durham violated his clearly established rights under either the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, we needn’t resolve whether Yeasin could meet the first prong of the qualified-immunity analysis for either issue.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action may raise qualified immunity after trial even if the defense was denied at summary judgment.

Jenkins v. City of Taunton · filed 2018-01-08

Finally, although mindful that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit as well as monetary damages, the denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage does not foreclose the responding officers from raising the defense in a post-trial motion based on the facts in evidence at trial.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from damages under Section 1983 unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established federal right that a reasonable officer would have known.

Pisoni v. McCord · filed 2018-01-09

Police officers who perform discretionary functions are entitled to be shielded from liability for civil damages in a Section 1983 claim as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established federal rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether McCord is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable officer would not have had notice that his conduct was unlawful.

Fernandez v. California Highway Patrol · filed 2018-01-09

Accordingly, Howard is entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.

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

Ruffin v. Cuyahoga Cty., Ohio · filed 2018-01-10

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) they did not violate any of Sharp’s constitutional rights or (2) the violated rights, if any, were not “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. ... When defendants raise this defense, the plaintiff must prove defendants are not entitled to it. ... Ruffin has failed to meet her burden; the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the individual defendants’ favor.

In a Section 1983 suit, the court decides entitlement to qualified immunity as a legal question; the jury resolves disputed facts relevant to that decision.

Stephens v. Bradshaw · filed 2018-01-10

This instruction was erroneous for two reasons. First, it is not the province of the jury to decide a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

Courts must assess qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss by taking the complaint’s allegations as true and deciding whether they assert a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Joseph Ex Rel. Estate of Joseph v. Gee · filed 2018-01-10

When presented with the officers’ motions to dismiss, both our precedent and precedent from the Supreme Court instruct the district court to analyze whether, taking Mr. Joseph’s allegations as true, the second amended complaint asserted a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a state officer when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Peffer v. Stephens · filed 2018-01-17

That is because we are convinced that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and therefore qualified immunity applies.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 excessive-force claim against a police officer.

Meloy v. Chetto · filed 2018-01-17

Eric Meloy’s appeal challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to his claim that Officer Chetto used excessive force against him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After review of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments presented on appeal, we are convinced that the district court correctly set out the facts and governing law and did not err in concluding that qualified immunity barred this claim.

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

Lincoln v. Maketa · filed 2018-01-17

Lt. Peck, Sgt. Stone, and the Commanders sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sheriff Maketa and Undersheriff Presley had retaliated based on the exercise of protected speech. ... Accordingly, Sheriff Maketa and Undersheriff Presley were entitled to qualified immunity on all of the claims.

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

R.B. v. Enterline · filed 2018-01-19

The ultimate outcome for Benjamin remains the same, as I find that this constitutional violation did not become clearly established law in this Circuit until Mann v. Palmerton Area School District was decided in September 2017.

Section 1983 gives officers qualified immunity unless they violate a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

District of Columbia v. Wesby · filed 2018-01-22

Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under §1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”

Section 1983 officers are not entitled to qualified immunity when their alleged conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable officer would understand.

Tomashek v. A.S. Meadows · filed 2018-01-23

Based on these holdings, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the officers’ conduct in this case was unlawful. Therefore, Officers Meadows and Johnson are not entitled to qualified immunity for Count Fourteen at this time.

Section 1983 affords qualified immunity against a malicious abuse of process claim when probable cause exists and the law is unsettled on whether probable cause defeats the claim.

Pulk v. Winter · filed 2018-01-23

Under these circumstances, this entitles an official such as Winter to qualified immunity against a malicious abuse of process claim when probable cause exists. Id. at 959. As discussed above, probable cause to arrest existed independent of Winter’s allegedly false statement. Accordingly, even if the deposition in support of the criminal complaint in which Winter made the allegedly false statement about attorney approval constitutes process, Winter is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the malicious abuse of process claim.

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

Marom v. Town of Greenburgh · filed 2018-01-23

Accordingly, the district court was correct in concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 claim, qualified immunity does not support summary judgment when the facts viewed in the plaintiff’s favor show a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Demaree v. Krause · filed 2018-01-23

We use a two-step test to evaluate claims of qualified immunity, “under which summary judgment is improper if, resolving all disputes of fact and credibility in favor of the party asserting the injury, (1) the facts adduced show that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

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

Demaree v. Pederson · filed 2018-01-23

But it does not provide a remedy for all constitutional violations. "The doctrine of 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."

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Jones v. Anderson · filed 2018-01-24

Because Jones failed to establish the violation of a constitutional right, he has also failed to show that Anderson is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for a police officer when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Estate of Aaron Bruce Cadman v. Dennis, et al. · filed 2018-01-29

As the Estate relies solely on that argument, and points to no “body of relevant case law” addressing the particular circumstances of this case, it has not borne its burden with respect to qualified immunity. Dennis is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s facts show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Miller v. Rubenstein · filed 2018-01-31

Since the facts that the plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, Peters is not entitled to qualified immunity for the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim when a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position would not have understood that the conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Castagna v. Jean · filed 2018-01-31

In any event, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under the second and third prong of the qualified immunity defense even if a jury could find the second wave officers’ warrantless entry here in response to an officer’s request for assistance to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The facts do not indicate that a reasonable officer, similarly situated to Troy, Tully, Bizzozero, and Pritchard, would have understood that warrantless entry in response to an officer’s request for assistance to contravene Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED as to Count 1(a) with respect to both Christopher and Gavin Castagna’s claims against Defendants Troy, Tully, Bizzozero, and Pritchard.

In a Section 1983 claim against an officer, the plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Williams · filed 2018-02-01

Notwithstanding the general principle that this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the plaintiffs still bear the burden to show that Williams is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a Section 1983 claim for firing a public employee over protected campaign speech that had no demonstrated impact on office operations.

Morgan v. Robinson · filed 2018-02-02

We therefore turn to the second inquiry, under which “[t]he relevant question . . . is this: Could [Robinson] reasonably have believed, at the time he fired [Morgan], that a government employer could fire an employee on account of” the employee exercising his First Amendment right to free speech during a run for political office, where that speech had no disruptive impact on office functioning? Lane, 134 S. Ct. at 2381. The answer to this question is an unequivocal “no.”

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right.

Fort Wayne Community Schools and Jacalyn Butler v. Steffanie Haney, for next friend and minor daughter, M.H. · filed 2018-02-05

Additionally, FWCS was entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 claim because, as a matter of law, Haney failed to show that Butler’s conduct could have violated a clearly established right.

A § 1983 defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s account would establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Flanigan v. Panin · filed 2018-02-05

Accordingly, at this point in the proceedings, Panin “is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” Id.

Individual defendants sued for damages under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint fails to state a constitutional violation.

Gischel v. Univ. of Cincinnati · filed 2018-02-05

As such, Gischel has failed to state a claim for violations of his substantive due process or equal protection rights upon which relief can be granted. It follows that Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims to the extent they are sued in their individual capacities.

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

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement Ass'n · filed 2018-02-06

We conclude that Ms. Sorby enjoys qualified immunity and reverse.

Public officials are immune from suit under § 1983 unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

J. L. v. Santos · filed 2018-02-06

Santos and Van der Hoek are public officials and are therefore “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.” City & Cty. of S.F. v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1774 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1983 defendants do not obtain qualified immunity merely because their conduct involved discretion.

Michno v. Cook County Sheriff's Office · filed 2018-02-06

So the proposition that defendants were dealing with matters involving discretion does not, without more, entitle them to qualified immunity.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Mack v. Chandler · filed 2018-02-07

Therefore, defendants Halfacre and Williams are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions and are dismissed from this action.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Estate of Leon Walker, Jr. v. Wallace · filed 2018-02-08

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... For these reasons, the plaintiffs have not carried their burden to show that the unconstitutional nature of Wallace's conduct was clearly established. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Section 1983 shields an officer from damages through qualified immunity when it was objectively reasonable to believe the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Tiramani v. Johnson · filed 2018-02-08

An officer is shielded from a suit for damages under § 1983 if "it was 'objectively reasonable' for the officer to believe his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right." Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). ... Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an officer who is entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Thompson v. City of Oakwood · filed 2018-02-08

Having determined that the rights at issue were not clearly established, Kroger is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity does not shield a university official from a § 1983 claim that plausibly alleges violations of clearly established equal-protection and procedural-due-process rights.

Doe v. Miami Univ. · filed 2018-02-09

Furthermore, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of John’s § 1983 procedural-due-process and equal-protection claims against Vaughn, as well as its holding that Vaughn was entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 action, qualified immunity protects officials when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation or a clearly established right.

Redmond v. Crowther · filed 2018-02-09

In sum, Nicholes and Powell are entitled to qualified immunity on the claim they violated the Eighth Amendment by exposing the prisoners to CS gas. Redmond cannot establish that the officers violated the Eighth Amendment and, even assuming they did, the right would not be clearly established.

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave fair warning that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Johnston v. Borders · filed 2018-02-09

Sheriff Borders argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Johnston’s § 1983 claim. ... Sheriff Borders did more than that — he publicly blamed Johnston for needlessly euthanizing over 100 animals in a series of press releases without giving her an opportunity to clear her name. As a result, Sheriff Borders is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law would have put a reasonable official on notice that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Perez v. City of Roseville · filed 2018-02-09

Because a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether the defendants terminated Perez at least in part on the basis of her extramarital affair, we conclude that she has put forth sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her Section 1983 claim for violation of her ... constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association. Moreover, these rights were clearly established by our precedent in Thorne such that any reasonable official would have been on notice that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to her, Perez’s termination was unconstitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on her privacy claim and remand that claim for further proceedings.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Newton v. Joseph · filed 2018-02-09

At best, Joseph’s counter-assertions create a genuine ... dispute as to material facts. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Joseph on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows the officer lacked arguable probable cause.

Watkins v. Perkins · filed 2018-02-12

We review grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. ... And, of course, an officer lacks arguable probable cause to arrest someone he hasn’t seen do anything wrong. Accordingly, Perkins is not entitled to summary judgment.

Section 1983 claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the right violated was not clearly established at the time.

E.W. v. Dolgos · filed 2018-02-12

Accordingly, we conclude that E.W.’s right not to be handcuffed under the circumstances of this case was not clearly established at the time of her seizure. As such, Dolgos is entitled to qualified immunity, and we affirm the district court as to the § 1983 claim.

School officials sued individually under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when existing precedent did not give them sufficient notice that their conduct violated constitutional rights.

Doe v. Russell Cnty. Sch. Bd. · filed 2018-02-13

A government official sued in his individual capacity under § 1983 may, however, be entitled to qualified immunity. ... Although the evidence could support a finding that Henley and Hooker were deliberately indifferent in their failure to provide training, existing precedent did not provide them sufficient notice that their conduct would give rise to a violation of constitutional rights. They are therefore entitled to qualified immunity, and I will grant the Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Count III as to Henley and Hooker.

Social workers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff presents no evidence that they fabricated evidence or retaliated against him.

Holland v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2018-02-15

The district court properly concluded that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 suit when the alleged violation was not clearly established under the circumstances the officer faced.

Batt v. Buccilli · filed 2018-02-16

Because the Batts have not identified such a case, we agree with the district court that qualified immunity shields Buccilli from suit.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved at summary judgment when disputed facts determine whether an officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable.

Ball v. Cortes · filed 2018-02-16

Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether Salgado is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.