42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity may be raised and considered on a motion to dismiss in a Section 1983 suit.

Young v. City of Tampa · filed 2018-02-20

To the contrary, that defense “may be . . . raised and considered on a motion to dismiss.” St. George v. Pinellas County, 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1317 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[A] valid defense based upon [qualified immunity] must be recognized as soon as possible, preferably at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stage of the litigation.”).

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the constitutional right at issue was not clearly established.

Smith v. Confreda · filed 2018-02-20

We affirm for the reasons stated in the court’s order, with one exception. The court found that Guilford violated Harold Smith’s constitutional right when he handcuffed and frisked Harold, but it ruled that Guilford was entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established.1 The constitutional ruling is not necessary to our decision, and we do not imply any position about whether it is correct.

An official sued in his individual capacity under Section 1983 may be entitled to qualified immunity from a petition claim.

Harmon v. Dall. Cnty. · filed 2018-02-20

For the reasons stated, the court concludes that Evans is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's Petition Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against him in his individual capacity, whether premised on retaliation in violation of the First Amendment's Petition Clause, denial of equal protection, or violations of state and local law; grants Defendant Derick Evans's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57); and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Petition Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Evans in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not shield prison officials with qualified immunity when an inmate’s right to an opportunity for exercise was clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Paul v. LaValley · filed 2018-02-23

Here, because an inmate’s right to be afforded an opportunity to exercise was clearly established as of the events in question, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Newberry v. W.B. Melton · filed 2018-02-23

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity and is thus shielded from § 1983 liability if his actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

An officer is entitled to summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when no case gave fair notice that the force was unconstitutional under the circumstances.

Estate of Yanira Serrano v. Trieu · filed 2018-02-23

At minimum, summary judgment was proper because the plaintiffs have not pointed to any case that would have placed Deputy Trieu on “fair notice” that the use of deadly force was unconstitutional under the circumstances of this case.

Officers sued under Section 1983 lack qualified immunity when established law makes their warrantless entry into a home unlawful.

Bonivert v. City of Clarkston · filed 2018-02-26

Following the Court’s reasoning, we conclude that the warrantless entry into Bonivert’s home violated the Fourth Amendment as none of the lawful exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Individual defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable state actor would not have known that the conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Kissinger v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch. · filed 2018-02-26

An objectively reasonable state actor, observing the undisputed events at the center of this case, simply would not have known that the search of a student's vehicle parked one short block away from the school would violate his constitutional rights. As a result, the individual defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Hill v. Walsh · filed 2018-02-27

And where there is reasonable debate about the constitutionality of the officers' actions, there is qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 excessive force suit, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have understood that the conduct violated clearly established law.

Parker v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2018-02-28

The district court therefore correctly found that a reasonable official in Sergeant Krempa’s position would not have understood that his actions violated clearly established law.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims when they had at least arguable probable cause to arrest.

Shaheed v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-03-02

For the following reasons, the Court holds that the officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiffs, and that the false arrest and false imprisonment claims against Figueroa and the City therefore must be dismissed. ... Accordingly, on any theory of false arrest or false imprisonment, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in a § 1983 action if the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established federal law.

Knopf v. Williams · filed 2018-03-05

Because this opinion and Judge Briscoe's concurrence conclude that Mr. Knopf has failed to show a violation of clearly established federal law on an essential element of his claim, this court reverses the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Mayor Williams.

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

Rogers Vann v. City of Southaven · filed 2018-03-05

With respect to Logan, the other officer who shot Vann, even assuming arguendo that Logan used excessive force, the question then becomes, was there law that put Logan on notice that shooting in the situation presented violated the constitution? It is the plaintiff’s burden to find a case in his favor that does not define the law at a “high level of generality.”

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Adams v. Ferguson · filed 2018-03-06

In light of repeated instruction from the Supreme Court, we must conclude that Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Adams’s § 1983 claims.

An officer sued individually under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation and that the violated right was clearly established at the time.

Shaw v. City of Selma · filed 2018-03-07

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, the estate must satisfy a two step inquiry. It must first prove that the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to it, establish that a constitutional violation did occur. ... And it must also show that law existing at the time the conduct occurred clearly established that the conduct violated the constitution. ... Even with the benefit of hindsight and without making any special allowance, we would not find that Williams violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Private medical personnel working in prisons are not entitled to qualified immunity against § 1983 claims.

Quinn v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. · filed 2018-03-07

Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has held that qualified immunity does not apply to private medical personnel in prisons, and there is no dispute that Obaisi, as Wexford’s employee, is private medical personnel.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a factual dispute remains over whether officers violated clearly established law.

Gerhart v. Rankin County, Mississipp · filed 2018-03-12

Accordingly, a fact issue on whether Barnes and McAlpin violated clearly established law precluded the district court from granting summary judgment to the officers on the unlawful-entry claim.

In a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity need not rebut grounds for immunity that the defendant has not raised.

Cotropia v. Chapman · filed 2018-03-12

In showing that the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law, the plaintiff need not rebut every conceivable reason that the defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity, including those not raised by the defendant.

When Section 1983 claims name multiple officers, each officer's entitlement to qualified immunity must be assessed individually.

Munroe v. City of Austin · filed 2018-03-12

When Section 1983 claims are brought against multiple officers, their entitlement to qualified immunity must be examined individually.

Qualified immunity did not shield the individual board members from this Section 1983 claim.

Toth v. Rich Township High School District 227 · filed 2018-03-12

Accordingly, the individual Board members are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when he violates a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Haberski v. Bufano · filed 2018-03-13

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both that the defendant violated a constitutional right and that the right was already clearly established -- given the circumstances -- when defendant acted. ... On this record, Deputy Bufano (for now at least) is unentitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

Qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims against the arresting officers in this case.

Gates v. Khokar · filed 2018-03-13

We conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and to official immunity on Plaintiff’s state claims.

A § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Kendall v. Olsen · filed 2018-03-13

Olsen was entitled to qualified immunity because Kendall did not demonstrate that Olsen violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Kendall’s section 1983 claims is therefore affirmed.

Section 1983 shields an officer from damages for excessive force when the specific constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Thompson v. Copeland · filed 2018-03-13

Although the use of excessive force violated Thompson’s constitutional rights, Copeland is entitled to qualified immunity because Thompson’s right not to have a gun pointed at him under the circumstances here was not clearly established at the time the events took place.

Qualified immunity did not support dismissal of the § 1983 search-warrant claim in this case.

Trey Sims v. Labowitz · filed 2018-03-14

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Sims' Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim on the ground of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants retain qualified immunity when deficiencies in their evidence or investigation are not serious enough to defeat that protection.

Norton v. Tabron · filed 2018-03-15

In any event, any deficiencies in the evidence or investigation were not so glaring as to deny Tabron and Regner the protection of qualified immunity.

Police officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the law does not clearly establish beyond debate that their conduct was unlawful.

Mglej v. Multnomah County · filed 2018-03-19

Because the case does not establish “beyond debate” that Mglej’s actions were lawful, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when they reasonably rely on another officer's probable cause determination.

Brandt v. City of Westminster · filed 2018-03-19

Accordingly, under the fellow officer rule, Sergeant Esslinger and Officer Rush are entitled to qualified immunity against all of Brandt's § 1983 claims.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Olson v. Ako · filed 2018-03-20

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right and the immunity question depends on facts.

Jain v. Butler Sch. Dist. 53 · filed 2018-03-22

The Administrators' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they "would not have believed taking plaintiff out of class and questioning him violated clearly established law," (Dist. Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. at 7-8), fails for the same reason. The allegations depict a situation that goes beyond mere "questioning." It is clearly established that students have a limited right to be free from unreasonable restrictions of liberty, and A has stated a claim for violation of that right.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiffs fail to show that their conduct implicated a protected constitutional right.

Smith v. Corcoran · filed 2018-03-23

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their placement in administrative segregation implicated a protected liberty interest.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against officials when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Spotted Elk v. Department of Health · filed 2018-03-23

As such, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Spotted Elk’s claim of deliberate indifference.

A government official has qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged unlawfulness of the official’s conduct was not clearly established at the time.

Gilliland v. Lill · filed 2018-03-27

Because the alleged unlawfulness of Lill’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct, the trial court correctly found that Lill had qualified immunity.

A parole officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when he allegedly conspires to manufacture probable cause for a malicious and retaliatory arrest.

Ali v. Raleigh County · filed 2018-03-29

Conspiring together to initiate this scheme against the Plaintiff in a malicious and retaliatory manner violates this clearly established constitutional right. Defendant Redden’s qualified immunity defense should therefore be denied.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the right at issue was clearly established at the time.

Emmons v. City of Escondido · filed 2018-03-29

The right to be free of excessive force was clearly established at the time of the events in question. Gravelet-Blondin v. Shelton, 728 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, as to Defendants Craig and Toth, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity on Mr. Emmons’ excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity shields officers from a § 1983 excessive force claim when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Cadena v. Scott · filed 2018-03-29

Because we conclude that neither the “take down” nor the tasing violated Cadena’s Fourth Amendment rights, qualified immunity applies.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when officers had arguable probable cause to bring the charge.

Collins v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-03-29

As a result, the Court concludes that the Defendants had arguable probable cause to charge the Plaintiffs with disorderly conduct under sections 240.20(5) and 240.20(6), and that the Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of malicious prosecution.

A public official cannot invoke qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim when retaliatory threats violate a clearly established right.

Noonan v. Kane · filed 2018-03-29

Accordingly, the allegations of Fina and Costanzo against Kane in Count Two state a violation of a clearly established right, and Kane is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these threats.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when the constitutional right they allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Van Dyke v. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2018-03-29

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

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

Crenshaw v. Town of Southborough · filed 2018-03-29

Therefore, even assuming that Chief Moran’s conduct was a violation of Crenshaw’s rights, absent a showing that such a violation was clearly established at the time that Chief Moran acted, she is entitled to qualified immunity.

A teacher is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 equal protection claim when clearly established law would alert a reasonable teacher that the alleged conduct creates a hostile school environment.

Doe v. Hutchinson · filed 2018-03-30

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that any reasonable high school teacher would have understood that the conduct alleged created a hostile environment in violation of Doe’s equal protection rights.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence and malicious-prosecution claims when the evidence shows at most a negligent investigation.

David Ferris, II v. City of Cadillac, Mich. · filed 2018-03-30

Viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the record at best reveals that Defendants were negligent in their investigation, “and such a conclusion does not establish a constitutional violation.” ... Defendants are thus entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if the officer reasonably could have believed the arrest was lawful under clearly established law and the information available at the time.

Arucan v. Cambridge E. Healthcare/Sava Seniorcare LLC · filed 2018-03-30

"But a lack of probable cause is not necessarily fatal to an officer's defense against civil liability for false arrest. Rather, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 'if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed at the time by the arresting agent.' "

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the alleged violation was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Kisela v. Hughes · filed 2018-04-02

Hughes sued Kisela under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that Kisela had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ... For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under Section 1983 unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established right.

Burnikel v. Fong · filed 2018-04-02

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer with qualified immunity when the officer violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty · filed 2018-04-02

We further determine that these rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Barberick v. Hilmer · filed 2018-04-04

The law governing the asserted constitutional violation was therefore not clearly established, and we REVERSE the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity to Defendants Dover and Steward.

Section 1983 claims against officers may proceed past a motion to dismiss when the alleged conduct is not protected by qualified immunity.

Andrews v. Deputy Brandon Marshall · filed 2018-04-05

For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that at this Rule 12(b)(6) stage the district court did not err in denying defendants Officer Marshall and Sergeant Kizzire’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Andrews’s § 1983 claims on the basis of ... qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages unless the facts show that they violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Demaree v. Krause · filed 2018-04-06

Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of constitutional rights by any person acting under color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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.”

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 excessive force claim against officers whose conduct did not violate a clearly established right under the facts known to them.

Washington v. Amand · filed 2018-04-09

Therefore, the Court concludes that the other defendants are protected by qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. ... As such, claims against Sergeant Dankievitch and Officers Capodilupo, Jr., Clement, Cronin, and Savastano are dismissed, but the claim against Lieutenant Doher will go forward.

Section 1983’s qualified immunity can protect officers from an excessive force claim when the evidence does not show they knew of the condition that made their use of force potentially unlawful.

Washington v. St. Amand · filed 2018-04-09

Therefore, the Court concludes that the other defendants are protected by qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false-arrest claim when a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause for the arrest.

Eisenbach v. Zatzkin · filed 2018-04-10

We conclude, however, that record evidence does not establish a genuine dispute as to whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, a reasonable officer could have concluded that Zatzkin’s investigation was ongoing.

Section 1983 does not give a prison officer qualified immunity for using force to maliciously and sadistically harm a prisoner, if the jury finds that the officer acted for that purpose.

Fugawa v. Dearmond · filed 2018-04-11

If the jury accepts Fugawa’s version of events, Officer DeArmond will not be entitled to qualified immunity. Since Hudson, a person serving a term of incarceration has had a clearly established right not to have his face slammed into the ground for the purpose of maliciously and sadistically causing harm.

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

Horstman v. City of Hillsboro · filed 2018-04-11

The district court erred in denying qualified immunity to the Individual Defendants.

In a Section 1983 suit, an official is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a genuine factual dispute that the official violated a constitutional right.

Hunt v. Pierson · filed 2018-04-11

As discussed above, the summary judgment evidence does not present a genuine issue of material fact that would support a claim of deliberate indifference; therefore, there has been no showing that Hunt’s constitutional rights were violated, and Pierson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit does not require a plaintiff to identify a prior case with identical facts when settled law gave the officer fair notice that the conduct was unlawful.

Doe v. Kane Cnty. · filed 2018-04-11

Therefore, Plaintiffs need not point to an analogous case where "a guard unshackled an inmate so that the inmate could use the toilet, the inmate then overpowered the guard, and then the inmate committed more violent crimes" to survive Defendants' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited their prolonged prone restraint of a handcuffed detainee who posed no material threat.

Hopper v. Plummer · filed 2018-04-12

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their actions violate clearly established rights “of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... We agree with the district court that Champion, among other precedent, gave such notice to defendants here.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law forbids the force alleged against a compliant suspect.

Sam v. Thompson · filed 2018-04-12

Furthermore, it was clearly established at the time of this incident that pushing, kneeing, and slapping a suspect who is neither fleeing nor resisting is excessive.

Public officials have qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless they violate clearly established law.

Breuder v. Hamilton · filed 2018-04-17

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under §1983 unless they transgress clearly established law.

Public officials have qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they violate clearly established rights.

Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502 · filed 2018-04-17

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 unless they transgress clearly established law. ... The members who refused even to listen to him violated his clearly established rights.

In a § 1983 excessive force suit, officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the right at issue was clearly established under similar circumstances.

Allen Hale, III v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et · filed 2018-04-19

Instead, Hale must point to case law clearly establishing that Lea and Garner acted unreasonably based on facts similar to the particular circumstances they faced—the use of deadly force and a taser where a person suspected of a nonviolent crime ignores repeated warnings to keep his hands visible and step outside of a confined area when he knows the people warning him are armed police officers, even if they have not told him he is under arrest.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 medical-care claim when a reasonable jailer would have known that using insulin from a broken glass vial and contaminated needles or syringes violated the law.

Bradford v. Singleton · filed 2018-04-19

In light of this precedent, the Court finds that a reasonable government official would have known that removing insulin from a broken glass vial for Plaintiff to use for several days and using contaminated needles or syringes in administering insulin injection violated the law. Therefore, Defendant Hanson is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity for unwelcome sexual harassment by a state employer when the conduct was clearly established as unconstitutional.

Hespe v. City of Chi. · filed 2018-04-20

That has long been unconstitutional, and Sgt. Breimon is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official accused of unwelcome sexual harassment is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 equal protection claim when that conduct was clearly established as unconstitutional.

Hespe v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-04-20

Plainly, by 1986, it was clearly established that sexual harassment by a state employer constituted sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. ... That has long been unconstitutional, and Sgt. Breimon is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when an officer in the same circumstances could reasonably believe the use of force was lawful, even if mistaken.

Beckman v. Hamilton · filed 2018-04-23

In this case, because an objective policeman in Deputy Hamilton’s place could have believed reasonably that Campbell (who was armed) was aiming -- or in the process of aiming -- a gun toward him, Deputy Hamilton is entitled to qualified immunity even if mistaken.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful-seizure claim when a reasonable officer could believe the stop and arrest were lawful.

Atwood v. Tullos · filed 2018-04-24

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that defendants have qualified immunity as to Atwood's claim for unlawful seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that claim will be dismissed.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Cummin v. North · filed 2018-04-26

Government officials are immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provided “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a Section 1983 claim when the official violates a clearly established constitutional right.

O'Neal v. G. Russell Rollyson, Jr. · filed 2018-04-26

Because Rollyson’s obligation, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, to take such measures was established, at the latest, in 2006 by the Supreme Court in Jones, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Rollyson’s actions violated the O’Neals’ clearly established Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate the asserted substantive due process right.

Andrews v. Schafer · filed 2018-04-30

Whether Andrews was entitled to relief or not, the defendants’ actions in the course of Andrews’s detention and related judicial proceedings do not shock the conscience. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff can overcome an officer’s qualified-immunity defense when the facts support a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Godby · filed 2018-05-01

We affirm the judgment of the district court on the purely legal determination that, at this stage of the proceedings, Officer Godby was not entitled to qualified immunity for Williams’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim.

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

Hill v. Reinke · filed 2018-05-01

At a minimum, the IDOC Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Hill did not possess a clearly established right to a hearing at the time of his transfer.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the force used during an arrest was objectively reasonable.

Rivera v. Lake Como · filed 2018-05-01

We thus affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity on Rivera’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity shields officials from damages under Section 1983 when the constitutional right was not clearly established for their specific conduct.

Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2018-05-02

Moreover, qualified immunity applies only to liability for money damages—not injunctive or declaratory ... relief. ... However, we also hold that the doctrine of qualified immunity does protect Pilorin, Dabney, and Hilton from damages liability.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison official from a Section 1983 claim when the official violates a constitutional right and acts objectively unreasonably under clearly established law.

Greene v. Feaster · filed 2018-05-02

Inversely, qualified immunity will not apply where (1) an inmate demonstrates a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the official’s conduct was objectively unreasonable when measured against the clearly established law at the time of the incident. ... Thus, based on Greene’s sworn allegations, it was objectively unreasonable for Feaster to pepper spray Greene absent any provocation, and for White to direct such gratuitous use of force. The district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment on Greene’s excessive force claim.

Section 1983 damages claims against police officers are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Walker v. Femino · filed 2018-05-02

To recover damages under § 1983 against a police officer, the constitutional right in question must be "clearly established." ... Therefore, even assuming a constitutional violation, defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim based on the foot pursuit.

A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Walker v. McGrath · filed 2018-05-02

To recover damages under § 1983 against a police officer, the constitutional right in question must be “clearly established.” And while the right to be free from seizure by the police absent a reasonable articulable suspicion is “clearly established,” the application of the right under the factual scenario presented here is not.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officers for a protective sweep that a reasonable officer would know violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Leonard Lawson, Jr. v. Gregg · filed 2018-05-07

The district court did err in granting the officers qualified immunity with respect to the protective sweep, which was not “a quick and limited search of [the] premises . . . to protect the safety of police officers or others.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990).

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Montanez v. Carvajal · filed 2018-05-09

We hold that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity at step one (so to speak) because their actions didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

In an individual-capacity § 1983 claim against a government official, the plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming qualified immunity.

Bluegrass Dutch Trust v. Rowan Cty. Fiscal Court · filed 2018-05-10

When alleging an individual-capacity claim under § 1983 against a government official, the plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming the official’s defense of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages for conduct that does not violate clearly established 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 lacks evidence sufficient to show a constitutional violation.

Williams v. Mannis · filed 2018-05-10

Thornton has failed to demonstrate sufficient facts to give rise to a triable question as to an alleged violation of a constitutional right. While law enforcement corruptly conducting an investigation with a view towards presenting knowingly false charges against an innocent person might well represent an instance of conscience-shocking behavior, Thornton has not presented any evidence beyond surmise that would allow a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that this happened.

A correctional officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Stevenson v. Cordova · filed 2018-05-11

Thus, Williams was entitled to qualified immunity on Stevenson’s refusal-to-loosen claim because the law with respect to his Eighth Amendment rights was not clearly established.

Section 1983 claims against state officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Isaacs v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, et al. · filed 2018-05-15

Accordingly, when Count I is cast as a procedural due process claim, Atty. Cahill is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can protect officials from liability under Section 1983.

Montero v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-05-16

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the claims against defendants Moran and Mueller for a different reason: their alleged acts were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Officers sued individually under Section 1983 may assert qualified immunity for conduct within their discretionary authority.

Saunders v. Sheriff of Brevard County · filed 2018-05-17

While we lack jurisdiction to review Saunders’ Monell claim against Ivey, we conclude that the district court improperly denied qualified immunity to defendants Jeter and Wright.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Easley v. City of Riverside · filed 2018-05-18

Based on these undisputed facts, a reasonable officer may have reasonably feared that Easley had a gun and was turning to shoot him. Thus, viewing the critical evidence in the light most favorable to Easley, we conclude that Macias is entitled to qualified ... immunity.

Qualified immunity shields a defendant from § 1983 money damages when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Hoch v. Sanzberro · filed 2018-05-22

Sanzberro is entitled to qualified immunity from Hoch’s claims for money damages. Assuming that Sanzberro’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, it was not clearly established in March 2008 that a state-hospital psychiatric technician in receipt of information that a detained patient-parolee had been found with plainly patient-restricted materials lacked sufficient cause to justify a search and seizure of that patient’s effects.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when no constitutional violation occurred.

Blankenship v. McDevitt · filed 2018-05-24

Because no constitutional violation occurred, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an official from individual liability under Section 1983 when the asserted duty to intervene was not clearly established.

Rojas v. City of Ocala · filed 2018-05-24

The Mayor is protected by qualified immunity based on the lack of authority that would warn the Mayor that he could be liable for failing to intervene to prevent the Chief's violation of the Establishment Clause. The Mayor is due to be granted summary judgment and the plaintiffs' motion seeking summary judgment as to the Mayor is due to be denied.

Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for withholding exculpatory evidence from prosecutors in 1992 because that duty was clearly established by then.

Ricks v. Pauch · filed 2018-05-30

The Court concludes, as Moldowan held, that a police officer's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor under a Brady -derived obligation was clearly established in 1992 when Desmond Ricks was investigated, tried, and convicted of the murder of Mr. Bennett.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could show that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment.

McGee v. Knolton · filed 2018-05-31

Government officials are immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing discretionary duties, provided “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). ... If the jury believes Plaintiff’s version of the facts, Knolton’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying summary judgment.

Section 1983 does not shield an official through qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Scott v. Becher · filed 2018-06-05

Taking the allegations in Scott’s complaint as true, we conclude that Becher was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of Scott’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference through reckless driving.

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Aversman v. Nicholson · filed 2018-06-05

As Mr. Nicholson asserted qualified immunity as a defense to Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs bore the burden to establish both that he violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Officers are protected from § 1983 false-arrest and malicious-prosecution liability when the corrected warrant application establishes probable cause.

Jecrois v. Sojak · filed 2018-06-06

The officers challenge the District Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Specifically, the officers assert there was probable cause to support issuance of the arrest warrant. We agree. Because the application supports a finding of probable cause, we conclude the officers did not violate Jecrois’s rights.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer with qualified immunity when the officer violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Pike v. Hester · filed 2018-06-06

Hester’s conduct violated Pike’s clearly established right; therefore, he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when clearly established precedent did not put the officers on notice that their conduct was unlawful in the situation they faced.

Weddle v. Nutzman · filed 2018-06-06

We find that, at the time of the incident, even if their use of force was more than the situation required, there did not exist clearly established precedent that would have put the Defendant Officers on notice that their conduct was unlawful in the situation they confronted. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Weddle’s § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects a defendant from a § 1983 equal protection claim when the plaintiff fails to show an equal protection violation.

Margarita Vejo v. Portland Public Schools · filed 2018-06-06

Because Vejo has failed to show an equal protection violation, Callin is entitled to qualified immunity.

To overcome qualified immunity on a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim, a plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Gorman v. State of Mississippi · filed 2018-06-06

To defeat qualified immunity in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate both a bona fide Fourth Amendment violation on the facts alleged and that the violation was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct. ... Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the remaining Fourth Amendment claim against Sharp.

Individual officers may receive qualified immunity from § 1983 claims.

Vos v. City of Newport Beach · filed 2018-06-11

Accordingly, the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims and the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the individual officers is affirmed on that ground.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when the officer had no arguable probable cause to arrest.

Olson v. Whitfield · filed 2018-06-12

Based on Ms. Olson’s account, Deputy Whitfield did not have arguable probable cause to arrest her. ... Therefore, the District Court properly denied qualified immunity to Deputy Whitfield on Ms. Olson’s federal false arrest claim.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because of the supervisor’s position, and qualified immunity applies unless existing law clearly established that the supervisor’s own conduct violated a constitutional right.

Perry v. Durborow · filed 2018-06-12

Yet § 1983 doesn’t “authorize liability under a theory of respondeat superior.” ... Instead, to satisfy the second part of the qualified-immunity test in the context of Perry’s supervisory-liability claim against Durborow, Perry must show that as of February 25, 2013, “clearly established law . . . would . . . have put a reasonable official in [Durborow’s] position on notice that his supervisory conduct would” violate Perry’s constitutional rights. ... Accordingly, Durborow is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff pleads a violation of a right that was clearly established when the conduct occurred.

Edrei v. Maguire · filed 2018-06-13

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity "unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (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."

An officer sued under Section 1983 for wrongful arrest is entitled to qualified immunity when it was reasonable to believe the arrest-warrant affidavit established probable cause.

Brooks v. City of Henderson · filed 2018-06-14

Where an arrest is made after issuance of a warrant, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless “a reasonably well-trained officer in [that officer’s] position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.” ... We hold that Officer Ebert is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 damages unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Robert Weisler, III v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's · filed 2018-06-18

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suits for 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.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). ... As such, it was not clearly established at the time of Weisler’s arrest that the Louisiana window-tint statute was a non-criminal offense or that the Fourth Amendment prohibited arrests for such offenses.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Wilson v. Prince George's County, Md · filed 2018-06-18

Accordingly, we hold that in October 2012, it was not clearly established that an officer would violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by shooting a person who: (1) was suspected of having committed a burglary and a battery; (2) was standing about 20 feet from the officer holding a knife, inflicting harm on himself and stumbling, but not threatening others or making sudden movements; and (3) was refusing to obey the officer’s repeated commands to drop the knife at the time he was shot. We therefore conclude that Officer Gill is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive force claim for shooting at a car that poses no immediate danger to officers or others.

Losee v. City of Chico · filed 2018-06-18

The right not to be shot in a car that poses no immediate danger to police officers or others is clearly established.

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

Keys v. Torres · filed 2018-06-19

Keys has not shown a violation of either his First Amendment or due process rights. The defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when the arrest lacks arguable probable cause and violates clearly established law.

Cozzi v. Thomas · filed 2018-06-19

In arresting Cozzi without arguable probable ... cause, Thomas violated clearly established law and thus is not entitled to qualified immunity.

School officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

A.T. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-06-19

Based on the analysis of the state created danger doctrine provided above, it cannot be said that it was clearly established at the time of the events alleged that school officials could be held liable under the state created danger doctrine for affirmatively and with deliberate indifference placing a student in a danger he would not have otherwise faced. For that reason, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the second cause of action and their Motions to Dismiss are therefore GRANTED with respect to that claim.

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity when, on the plaintiff’s version of events, the officer’s unjustified use of force violated clearly established law.

Chalco v. Belair · filed 2018-06-20

Accordingly, Belair has failed to show entitlement to qualified immunity with respect to the excessive force claim.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when it would not be clear to every reasonable officer that their conduct violated constitutional rights.

Williams v. E. Hazel · filed 2018-06-20

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that he was violating Williams’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against public officials who have qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established.

Comsys Incorporated v. Pacetti · filed 2018-06-20

Qualified immunity protects public employees who do not violate clearly established law. ... It follows that Mayor Bosman, Administrator Pacetti, and Manager St. Peter cannot be ordered to pay damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Qualified immunity does not apply to § 1983 claims against officials sued in their official capacities because those claims are against the governmental entity.

Kegerise v. Susquehanna Twp. Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-06-21

Thus, by suing the aforementioned individual Board members in their official capacities, Plaintiff is, in actuality, suing the District, rendering qualified immunity inapplicable.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officials whose unlawful conduct violated a clearly established right.

Simon v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-06-21

We further conclude that the unlawfulness of the defendants' conduct was clearly established when they acted.

A public official may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when established law makes the unlawfulness of the alleged conduct obvious, even without precedent addressing the exact conduct.

Mathis & Sons, Inc. v. Kentucky Trans. Cabinet · filed 2018-06-22

The question here, then, is whether the established law forbidding racial discrimination would “apply with obvious clarity” to the defendants’ acts, if “motivated by discriminatory intent or purpose” and intended to harm Mathis & Sons’ business. That is, would a KYTC employee of ordinary common sense know, without need for specific instruction from a federal court, that fabricating alleged concerns and falsifying Reed Hampton’s recommendation, due to racial animus, would violate Mathis & Son’s rights? We are confident that he or she would know.

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

Torres v. Goddard · filed 2018-06-25

Whether or not the warrants were properly issued, we agree with the district court that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to their service and execution.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from an unlawful-arrest claim when they reasonably believe they have probable cause.

Hedgpeth v. Rahim · filed 2018-06-26

The officers had a reasonable basis for believing they had probable cause to arrest Hedgpeth for public intoxication, which alone entitles them to qualified immunity on the claim of an unlawful arrest.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the specific conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Brown v. Morsi · filed 2018-06-26

In sum, Morsi warrants qualified immunity as to the car collision based upon the facts present here.

In a § 1983 suit, officers’ qualified immunity cannot be resolved without considering the circumstances that may have justified their conduct.

Sause v. Bauer · filed 2018-06-28

We appreciate that petitioner elected on appeal to raise only a First Amendment argument and not to pursue an independent Fourth Amendment claim, but under the circumstances, the First Amendment claim demanded consideration of the ground on which the officers were present in the apartment and the nature of any legitimate law enforcement interests that might have justified an order to stop praying at the specific time in question. Without considering these matters, neither the free exercise issue nor the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity can be resolved.

Officers cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when clearly established law gave them fair warning that their alleged use of force was unlawful.

Ruemenapp v. Oscoda Twp., Mich. · filed 2018-06-28

Because the “contours” of Ruemenapp’s right not to be subjected to excessive force during an arrest were sufficiently clear in February 2015, Alexander and Soboleski should have understood that the aggressive actions they took would violate a clearly established right.

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

Graham-Smith v. Wilkes Barre Police Department · filed 2018-06-28

As discussed above, Graham-Smith has not established the violation of any of her constitutional rights by Gribble’s reasonable use of force. Therefore, Gribble is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when they lacked fair warning that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Leath v. Webb · filed 2018-06-29

The officers and nurses did not have "fair warning" that their actions would violate a clearly established constitutional right, and they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts permit a jury to find that a reasonable officer would have known the force violated clearly established law.

Giannini v. Abington · filed 2018-06-29

As disputed, a reasonable jury could accept that a reasonable officer standing in Gambino’s shoes would have understood that such conduct violated clearly established law regarding excessive use of force.

Section 1983 claims against a prison chaplain are subject to qualified immunity when the chaplain did not violate the inmate’s constitutional rights.

Williams v. Bedison · filed 2018-07-03

Because the district court’s findings that Bedison did not violate Williams’s First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights were not wrong, we also see no error in the district court’s finding that Bedison is protected from Williams’s claims by the Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity doctrines.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed evidence could show that no reasonable officer would have believed probable cause existed.

Thagard v. Lauber · filed 2018-07-03

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, arguable probable cause did not exist here. The eyewitness identifications of Basile and Grover do not support a finding of "arguable probable cause" because no objectively reasonable officer would believe that their identifications were sufficient if Plaintiff's claims are credited-namely, that Defendant threatened Basile and informed both Basile and Grover that other individuals had identified the shooter from the photo array.

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

Thompson v. City of Monticello, Ark. · filed 2018-07-06

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.” ... Accordingly, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is affirmed.

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability under Section 1983 when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Johnson v. Bessemer, Alabama, City of · filed 2018-07-10

Because of that and the fact it was not clear that Goodwin’s failure to provide medical care to Proctor amounted to deliberate indifference, even if Goodwin did violate Proctor’s constitutional rights she would still be entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiffs, supports a violation of clearly established law.

Gulstan Silva, Jr. v. Chung · filed 2018-07-10

To determine whether an officer is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we consider, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Appellees: (1) whether the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) if so, whether the officer violated clearly established law. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

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

Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah · filed 2018-07-10

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

When deciding qualified immunity on summary judgment in a § 1983 claim, the court views the evidence and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Hernandez v. Colon · filed 2018-07-11

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that by viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the non-moving party, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, the court committed legal error when rejecting Defendants' assertions of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the facts, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Neal v. Ficcadenti · filed 2018-07-12

After construing the facts in a light most favorable to Neal, i.e. that he was fully compliant at the time that Officer Ficcadenti applied the arm-bar takedown maneuver on him, that conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right on June 6, 2012. The district court correctly concluded that this is one of those relatively rare cases in which a question of fact is presented for the ultimate finder of fact and qualified immunity does not apply.

A defendant in a § 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Bishop v. Szuba · filed 2018-07-12

Accordingly, Szuba is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution.

Turpin v. Ray · filed 2018-07-12

Based on the unsettled legal status of a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in this particular scenario and with an eye to Circuit case law, the Court finds that the officers’ entry into the home upon permission of Mr. Ray was not a clearly established constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity protects officials from Section 1983 claims unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Goolsby v. District of Columbia · filed 2018-07-13

Both sets of individual defendants have argued that their actions are protected by qualified immunity. As to the Officers, the Court agrees in full and will dismiss the section 1983 claims against them.

Public officials have qualified immunity from Section 1983 suits unless their conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable person would have known.

Goolsby v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-07-13

Public officials will have immunity from suit under section 1983 unless their conduct violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 in their individual capacities may have qualified immunity when their conduct was objectively legally reasonable.

Harasz v. Katz · filed 2018-07-19

In the alternative, the individual defendants Ferreira and Kennedy are entitled to "qualified immunity" in their individual capacities with respect to damages on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims.

An individual official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Bailey v. Independent School District · filed 2018-07-24

These cases are insufficient to demonstrate the existence of clearly established law. In other words, they would not give a reasonable official in McDaniel’s position particularized notice that his termination of Bailey for writing letters to a sentencing judge would violate Bailey’s First Amendment rights. Therefore, McDaniel is protected by qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Nelson v. Lott · filed 2018-07-24

Because plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that defendants violated Nelson's clearly established right to be free from excessive force, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when no clearly established law would have alerted reasonable officers that their conduct was unlawful.

Berg v. Kelly · filed 2018-07-25

In sum, in the absence of clearly established law prohibiting the challenged detentions in the circumstances presented, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 wrongful-arrest claim when minimal further investigation would have shown that the suspect’s speech was not a true threat under clearly established state law.

Ross v. City of Jackson, Missouri · filed 2018-07-26

Ross argues that the district court erred in concluding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging the violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. ... In this case, even a “minimal further investigation” would have revealed that Ross’s post was not a true threat. ... We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers based on qualified immunity and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged conduct violates clearly established rights.

Hernandez v. City of San Jose · filed 2018-07-27

Taking the allegations in the operative complaint as true, and reading them in the light most favorable to the Attendees, we find the Officers violated clearly established rights and are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity from a false arrest claim at summary judgment when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, no reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was driving under the influence.

Llorente v. Gallup · filed 2018-07-30

Deputy Gallup is not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim at the summary judgment stage because, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Llorente, no reasonable police officer could have believed that Llorente’s conduct at the time of the stop constituted driving under the influence.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim is assessed objectively; an officer’s subjective motivation does not defeat it.

Thorp v. District of Columbia · filed 2018-07-30

Thorp’s continued emphasis on Kyle’s motivation is therefore not germane to the application of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim is judged objectively; an officer's subjective motivation does not defeat the defense.

Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-07-30

Thorp's continued emphasis on Kyle's motivation is therefore not germane to the application of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield prison officers at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that they used excessive force or failed to intervene in its use.

Sayed v. Virginia · filed 2018-07-31

Mr. Sayed alleged that defendants beat him, broke his finger, and permanently disabled his right hand, all while Lt. Virginia watched and did nothing to stop it. Given these allegations, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits an individual-capacity claim based on Section 504 violations, and qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal when the alleged conduct would plainly violate established rights.

Lawton v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc. · filed 2018-08-01

Plaintiffs allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brown in his individual capacity on the basis that he violated their § 504 rights. ... Here, plaintiffs allege facts, such as Brown's Got-to-Go list, that, if proven, could establish intentional and systemic discrimination against students with disabilities, as well as his retaliation against two of the students' parents for attempting to protect those students' rights. ... A reasonable school official could not believe that such conduct, as alleged, did not violate § 504.

In a § 1983 suit, an official is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot show that the official violated a clearly established right.

Rife v. Jefferson · filed 2018-08-02

We affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying Jefferson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. But because Rife fails to demonstrate that the law was clearly established as to Willis and Dale, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity when the official did not violate clearly established rights.

Nagel v. City of Jamestown · filed 2018-08-02

As explained below, Edinger did not violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights, and thus, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 false arrest and excessive force claims when the alleged conduct violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

Estep v. Combs · filed 2018-08-02

Here-as to both the handcuffing and false arrest allegations-the Court answers both prongs of the inquiry affirmatively and rejects immunity-based dismissal.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest or malicious prosecution claim when a jury could find that no reasonable officer would have believed probable cause existed.

Walsh v. City of New York · filed 2018-08-03

Based on the evidence presented at trial, we believe that a reasonable juror could conclude that any reasonable officer in Roach’s and Clark’s positions would have known that Walsh’s use of force was privileged, and that no reasonable officer in their positions would have determined that probable cause existed to arrest Walsh and initiate his prosecution.

In a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff seeking to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity bears the burden of showing a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Zachary Church v. Bob Anderson · filed 2018-08-03

To overcome Anderson’s claim of qualified immunity, Church bears the burden of showing that the facts alleged, construed in the light most favorable to Church, demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation.