42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Gregory Lambert, as Administrator of the Estate of Harrison Lambert v. Town of Merrimack, et al. · filed 2018-08-06

In sum, the Estate has not demonstrated that either Tarleton or Gudzinowicz violated Lambert's clearly established rights. The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit when a deliberate or reckless falsehood in a warrant affidavit was material to probable cause.

McCallum v. Geelhood · filed 2018-08-06

Thus, a plaintiff may challenge an officer’s qualified-immunity defense in a civil-rights case by showing that (1) the officer’s warrant affidavit contained a false statement or omission that was made either deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) that the false statement or omission was material to the finding of probable cause.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under § 1983 unless the officer’s conduct violates clearly established law.

Ramirez v. Fonseca · filed 2018-08-06

"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials acting within their discretionary authority from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law of which a reasonable person would have known."

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when their force was objectively unreasonable and the relevant right was clearly established.

Michael v. Trevena · filed 2018-08-07

Accordingly, neither officer is entitled to qualified immunity on Michael’s excessive force claim.

A court must rule on an asserted qualified-immunity defense in a § 1983 suit before requiring the officials to proceed with litigation.

R.F.J. v. Perry · filed 2018-08-07

Qualified immunity is not a last exit before liability. ... The district court’s deferral of its decision violates these principles.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim should not be granted on summary judgment when the defense depends on disputed facts.

Hatton v. Mullan · filed 2018-08-07

There is no dispute regarding whether a particular legal proposition has or has not been clearly established; rather, the parties only disagree on the actual underlying facts, and it is inappropriate to grant a qualified immunity defense at summary judgment where the defense is premised on a factual dispute.

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

Rokusek v. Jansen · filed 2018-08-08

To overcome Trooper Jansen’s claim of qualified immunity, Rokusek must show the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Jansen summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 has qualified immunity unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right a reasonable person would have known.

Wenzel v. Storm · filed 2018-08-09

Qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer from liability in a § 1983 action unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law gave fair warning that his conduct was unlawful.

Collins v. Schmidt · filed 2018-08-09

While there is no evidence that Schmidt knowingly violated the law, there is no question that he should have known better. As such, Schmidt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 damages action, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for violating a clearly established right that a reasonable officer would have known.

Collins v. City of St. Paul · filed 2018-08-09

While there is no evidence that Schmidt knowingly violated the law, there is no question that he should have known better. As such, Schmidt is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the officer had at least arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Heard v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-08-10

It follows naturally from the conclusion that Officer Roche had probable cause to arrest Heard that Officer Roche had at least "arguable probable cause" to arrest Heard. ... Officer Roche is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

A paramedic is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the law did not clearly establish that sedating an arrestee during a medical emergency violated the Fourth Amendment.

Thompson v. Cope · filed 2018-08-14

The paramedic is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when the officer stops a car without cause in response to a passenger's offensive gesture.

Clark v. Coleman · filed 2018-08-14

In light of the relevant precedent, even if Plaintiff had gigged Coleman, Coleman still lacked any authority to seize him during a traffic stop, and a reasonable officer should have known that any seizure was in contravention of the Constitution. Coleman's claim of qualified immunity is rejected, and Count II will proceed to trial against Coleman.

Qualified immunity can shield individual defendants from liability under Section 1983.

Colvin v. Keen · filed 2018-08-15

The judgment is AFFIRMED by reason of the defendants’ qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Bland v. City of Newark · filed 2018-08-15

Because Defendants did not violate any of Bland’s clearly established constitutional rights, we will reverse the order of the District Court so summary judgment may be entered for Defendants.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials are subject to qualified immunity when settled law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Davis v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512 · filed 2018-08-15

On this record, plaintiff has not shown that settled law clearly established that reassigning her to teach freshman biology at SMW constituted adverse employment action. Because the law did not establish "beyond debate" that defendants' actions were unlawful, McKinney and Lyon are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claims.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a police officer’s duty to disclose material impeachment evidence was clearly established and the officer’s state of mind remains disputed.

Mellen v. Winn · filed 2018-08-17

Detective Winn offers no meaningful way to distinguish Carrillo, Butler, and Kyles, and we agree that these cases are controlling. We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Detective Winn on Mellen’s § 1983 claim premised on a violation of her due process rights, and we remand for further proceedings.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim unless the officer’s conduct violated law that was clearly established at the time.

Samples v. Harris County · filed 2018-08-17

In light of Carroll’s express reservation of so similar a constitutional question, and in light of the Court’s repeated instruction that caselaw involving excessive force claims must be sufficiently particularized and must put the issue altogether “beyond debate,” we must conclude that Vadzemnieks’s actions did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the incident. Vadzemnieks is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Muhammad v. Del Pearson · filed 2018-08-17

Accordingly, Officer Pearson had at least argu- able probable cause to arrest Muhammad and is entitled to qualified immunity for his arrest.

A § 1983 excessive-force claim may proceed when disputed facts prevent an officer from obtaining summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Young v. District of Columbia · filed 2018-08-20

Following a summary of the applicable legal framework, the factual record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is analyzed to determine whether qualified immunity bars this claim. The Court concludes that the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment Excessive Force claim may proceed to trial.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff sufficiently alleges a violation of clearly established equal protection rights.

Doe v. Ohio State Univ. · filed 2018-08-20

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim under § 1983 that Individual Defendants Smith and Page violated his equal protection rights and that those same rights were clearly established during the relevant time frame in this case, from 2014 through 2016. ... Thus, Individual Defendants Smith and Page are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's equal-protection claim.

Qualified immunity can defend against section 1983 damages when the asserted right was not clearly established, but it does not protect an officer whose warrantless entry no reasonable officer could justify.

Cooper v. The City of Chicago · filed 2018-08-20

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides a defense in a section 1983 suit for damages where, among other things, the right the officer is claimed to have violated was not a "clearly established constitutional right." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). ... In sum, the Court concludes that Clyne is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive handcuffing claim when clearly established law gave notice that ignoring a complaint about tight handcuffs causing injury was unlawful.

Hansen v. Aper · filed 2018-08-21

Aper was on notice that handcuffing violates the Fourth Amendment if the arrestee is handcuffed, complains about the tightness, law enforcement ignores the complaint, and the arrestee suffers injury. Therefore, the district court correctly denied Aper qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 false arrest claim, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when, under the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts, it was objectively unreasonable to believe probable cause existed.

Washington v. Salazar · filed 2018-08-21

Accepting Washington’s version of the facts as true, it would have been objectively unreasonable for Salazar to believe probable cause existed for any alleged offense.

An officer who violates a clearly established right to bodily integrity is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim.

Kane v. Barger · filed 2018-08-22

With this context, it is clear that—at the time Barger acted—the law provided fair warning that his sexual misconduct toward Kane was unlawful. As such, the right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 unlawful-arrest claim when the arrest lacks arguable probable cause and clearly established law prohibits it.

Johnson v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2018-08-24

In sum, we find Officer Heiple lacked arguable probable cause to arrest Johnson. ... At bottom, “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could [not] have interpreted the law as permitting the arrest[] here.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 593.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when they violate a clearly established right.

Wilson v. Lamp · filed 2018-08-28

The district court correctly concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

Individual defendants sued for damages under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity.

Grissom v. Roberts · filed 2018-08-29

Individual defendants sued for damages under § 1983 may raise a defense of qualified immunity.

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

Perry v. Spencer · filed 2018-08-29

Defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Moore v. Eger · filed 2018-08-30

To do so, Moore must show both (1) that the officers violated his constitutional rights and (2) that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. ... The district court correctly determined that Moore satisfied both prongs of that test here.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit requires an individualized assessment of each defendant officer.

Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Cline · filed 2018-08-31

Consequently, before we can review whether or not the facts taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs entitle any of the defendant officers to qualified immunity, the district court must articulate an individualized analysis of such facts as applied to each defendant officer.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim for retaliation against a public employee who organizes an association when the employee’s association and related speech rights were clearly established.

Mote v. Walthall · filed 2018-08-31

For the above reasons, we agree with the district court that Mote’s association and speech rights to engage in the activities he alleged were clearly protected. The district court correctly rejected Walthall’s qualified immunity defense and we therefore DISMISS this appeal.

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

Mehta v. City of Upland · filed 2018-08-31

An officer in Officer Brown’s situation could reasonably believe that the amount of force he used was lawful to ensure the safety of both officers and the public. The district court, therefore, correctly held that Officer Brown was entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity when an officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Couchon v. Cousins · filed 2018-08-31

Under the circumstances, I find that the law as it existed at the time Officer Jorge unleashed Gunny (as is still the case today) does not clearly establish the unreasonableness of using a trained dog to subdue a noncompliant inmate. I therefore conclude that Officer Jorge is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances at the time.

Valdez v. Estrada · filed 2018-09-04

Because the conduct that is the subject of this suit was objectively reasonable under the circumstances at the time, we conclude the district court properly concluded that qualified immunity precluded Plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 claims against state officials are subject to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates a clearly established right a reasonable person would have known.

Patterson v. Bolden · filed 2018-09-05

Qualified immunity shields state officials from both civil liability and the burdens of litigation unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

Qualified immunity does not justify summary judgment in a Section 1983 action when a reasonable jury could find that the officer’s search was unconstitutional and that the officer is not entitled to immunity.

Harris v. Klare · filed 2018-09-05

Because a reasonable jury could find that Klare’s search of Harris was unconstitutional and that Klare is not entitled to qualified immunity, we reverse.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established under the circumstances at the time.

Linicomn v. City of Dallas · filed 2018-09-05

Though we find plausible Vernon’s allegations that the officers’ warrantless entry into his house violated his Fourth Amendment right, we cannot conclude, under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers’ entry.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages claims unless the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

Shannon v. Venettozzi · filed 2018-09-06

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity on Section 1983 claims asserted against them unless “the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Simon v. City of New York, 893 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of Officer McTurner’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

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

Leiser v. Moore · filed 2018-09-06

In short, in our view clearly established law does not support Plaintiff’s constitutional claim.

Officers sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity on summary judgment for a warrantless home entry when a factual dispute remains over whether exigent circumstances justified it.

Maric v. Alvarado · filed 2018-09-06

While Defendants argue that “exigent circumstances” necessitated their warrantless entry, Maric has adduced evidence sufficient to demonstrate a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies here: the officers had no probable cause to believe that Maric committed the crime of misdemeanor child endangerment, and “there were simply no circumstances pointing to an actual or imminent injury inside the home,” Bonivert, 883 F.3d at 877.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 damages when a reasonable officer could have believed the plaintiff disclaimed his privacy interest in the searched home.

Watson v. Pearson · filed 2018-09-06

But because a reasonable officer could have believed that defendant disclaimed his privacy interest in the residence, qualified immunity is warranted.

Section 1983 claims against officers may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds when the alleged facts do not show a constitutional violation.

Robert Mann, Sr. v. Tennis · filed 2018-09-07

Because the facts alleged by Plaintiffs failed to “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” the district court erred in denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Ioane v. Noll · filed 2018-09-10

Plaintiff Shelly Ioane filed suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Agent Jean Noll. ... An officer is entitled to qualified immunity under this test unless (1) the facts, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the asserted violation.

A defendant in a Section 1983 false arrest suit is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts could establish an arrest without probable cause in violation of a clearly established right.

Nelson v. Lutzou · filed 2018-09-11

The Defendants are thus not entitled as a matter of law to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited the force used.

Bob Glasscox v. Argo, City Of, etc. · filed 2018-09-12

We also conclude that the law was clearly established at the time of Mr. Glasscox’s encounter with Officer Moses that the repeated deployment of a taser on an arrestee who has stopped resisting and is attempting to comply constituted excessive force. We affirm the denial of qualified immunity to Officer Moses.

State officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Duffy v. Wallace · filed 2018-09-14

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the defendants, all of them State officers, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim cannot be decided until a jury resolves disputed material facts about the officer's conduct.

BASKIN VS. RAFAEL MARTINEZ (L-0901-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2018-09-14

Accordingly, we reverse the July 22, 2016 order and remand so that the question of what exactly occurred before the shooting can be assessed and resolved by a jury. There exist disputed facts that must be resolved before the court can determine whether defendant's actions were objectively reasonable and if he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of their conduct would not have been clear to every reasonable officer.

Easley v. Flores · filed 2018-09-18

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Easley’s Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable officer that the impoundment of Easley’s vehicle under California Vehicle Code § 22651(o)(1)(A) and inventory search under Santa Monica Police Department Policy § 510.4 were unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Mohamud v. Weyker · filed 2018-09-18

The Court concludes that Ahmed and Mohamud plausibly alleged Weyker violated rights under the Fourth Amendment and that their allegedly violated rights were clearly established. See Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2017); Dowell, 762 F.3d at 777; Livers, 700 F.3d at 357. At this stage of the litigation, Weyker is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer defending a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim may receive qualified immunity if arguable probable cause existed, even without actual probable cause.

Alston v. City of Darien · filed 2018-09-19

But in the context of § 1983, a police officer may be entitled to qualified immunity even if there was no actual probable cause for arrest; instead, an officer who raises a qualified immunity defense will prevail if there was arguable probable cause.

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

Walker v. Coffey · filed 2018-09-20

Rather, the relevant question is whether, under the particular circumstances of this case, Appellees’ conduct violated Walker’s clearly established ... constitutional rights. Because we conclude that it did not, Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Walker’s § 1983 claim.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the challenged conduct violates no clearly established right.

Wrecker Works, L.L.C. v. City of Aberdeen · filed 2018-09-20

Chief Randle is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when no reasonable officer could conclude that probable cause existed.

McDonald v. City of Bos. · filed 2018-09-20

Under these factual circumstances, no officer could reasonably, but mistakenly, conclude that probable cause was present. Accordingly, Det. Walker's motion for summary judgment as to Count I is denied and McDonald's motion for summary judgment as to Count I (liability only) is granted.

Officers lack qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited their use of a Taser without warning on a nonresisting misdemeanant.

Lee v. Tucker · filed 2018-09-24

As to the purely legal challenge defendants raise on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly held that-based on the relevant version of the facts-the defendants used excessive force and did so in violation of clearly established law.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the asserted right was not clearly established.

J W v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. · filed 2018-09-24

The six SROs who were held individually liable on the students' § 1983 Fourth Amendment decontamination claims are entitled to qualified immunity, and we therefore reverse the judgments entered against them.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 arrest claim at summary judgment when a jury could find that an officer materially misrepresented evidence to obtain the arrest warrant.

Sherrod v. McHugh · filed 2018-09-25

Accordingly, qualified immunity is again unavailable to Detective McHugh and the Court denies District Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts I and III insofar as those Counts cover Mrs. Sherrod’s arrest and subsequent temporary detention.

Qualified immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim against a prison official.

Onstad v. Kelley · filed 2018-09-25

After de novo review, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Onstad and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we find no basis for overturning the District Court’s well- reasoned determination that Gibson was entitled to qualified immunity.

For § 1983 qualified immunity, failure to follow governing procedures does not by itself place an official outside their discretionary authority.

Ellison v. Hobbs · filed 2018-09-25

The Court rejects this argument for several reasons. ... Finally, as Andrews instructs, failure to comply with governing procedures does not ipso facto mean a public official acted outside his discretionary authority.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against individual officials when the plaintiff identifies no clearly established law prohibiting their alleged conduct.

Holmes v. Grant Cnty. Sheriff Dep't · filed 2018-09-26

For example, if Holmes were to amend her Complaint to assert § 1983 claims stemming from the same facts already alleged, the individual Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because of Holmes' failure to point to any case law clearly establishing that it violates the Constitution of the United States of America or any federal statute to detain a person driving an unregistered vehicle without a driver's license.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim when the officer’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Kelsay v. Matt Ernst · filed 2018-09-27

The constitutionality of Ernst’s takedown was not beyond debate, and he is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to prison officers for excessive force that violates clearly established law.

Schultz v. Doher · filed 2018-09-27

Here, and as noted above, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Frates, Phattamachak, and Tetreault used excessive force in subduing and removing the plaintiff from his cell. Assuming a jury were to conclude that they did, the law was clearly established at the time of the incident that a prison official cannot use excessive force on an inmate for the sole purpose of causing harm. ... It follows that the defendants are thus not entitled to qualified immunity here.

Individual defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Klaassen v. Atkinson · filed 2018-09-28

In sum, Dr. Klaassen has not shown that the individual defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable person would have known about when he allegedly violated Dr. Klaassen's constitutional rights. The individual defendants thus are entitled to qualified immunity against Dr. Klaassen's procedural due process claim that they deprived him of a property interest in a right to conduct research or a right to serve as a Principal Investigator on an NIH grant.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 arrest claim at summary judgment when disputed facts, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, permit a finding that there was clearly no probable cause.

O'Connell v. Town of Tewksbury · filed 2018-09-28

Applying this standard to the facts presented, Plaintiff has shown that qualified immunity is unwarranted on summary judgment. ... Taking the disputed facts about these interactions in the light most favorable to Plaintiff—as the court must—a reasonable jury could find that there was clearly no probable cause when she was arrested that Plaintiff committed either of the crimes charged.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the officer's conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Varnadore v. Merritt · filed 2018-09-30

In this case, Plaintiff brings claims against Deputy Merritt of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018). ... As such, he did not violate Mr. Foskey's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer facing a Section 1983 excessive-force claim has qualified immunity when a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would not have understood that the force violated a clearly established right.

Justiniano v. Walker · filed 2018-09-30

Accordingly, even assuming Justiniano’s rights were violated, the violation was not obvious to a reasonable officer and qualified immunity therefore would shield Trooper Walker from liability.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence does not establish a violation of a federal right.

Vasquez v. Hill · filed 2018-10-01

“An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” ... In this case, the Court has answered the first question negatively. Defendant is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning · filed 2018-10-02

Consequently, although Homanko’s judgment was bad to the point of recklessness, he is entitled to qualified immunity on Sauers’s § 1983 state-created danger claim.

An official claiming qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit must first show that the challenged actions fell within the scope of the official’s discretionary authority.

The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport · filed 2018-10-02

Davenport has the initial burden of raising the defense of qualified immunity by proving that his discretionary authority extended to his alleged actions. Because Alabama law establishes that a prison warden does not have the discretionary authority to control a dying inmate’s end-of-life decisions, Davenport cannot satisfy that burden and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officials may receive qualified immunity from damages when they reasonably believed their conduct was lawful, even if the conduct violated a constitutional right.

Barnes v. Fedele · filed 2018-10-02

Thus, defendants having proffered that legitimate reason for the policy, the chief question before this Court is whether defendants could reasonably have thought that the means they adopted or used to effect those ends were constitutionally permissible. I find, as a matter of law, that they could have.

Section 1983 claims against officers may be barred by qualified immunity when the law governing their conduct was unclear.

Smith v. First State Animal Center · filed 2018-10-04

Nevertheless, to the extent an ACO’s ability to enforce the animal welfare laws in 2015 was ambiguous, Defendants are protected in this case by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when, on the plaintiff's version of events, an officer had fair notice that stopping lifesaving care was unconstitutional.

Waldron v. Spicher · filed 2018-10-05

Therefore, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Waldron, Spicher was on notice that his actions were unconstitutional. Accordingly, Spicher is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a constitutional right.

Winfield v. Lawrence General Hospital · filed 2018-10-05

Dube is also entitled to qualified immunity based on the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, which is “whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right.” Stamps, 813 F.3d at 34 (internal quotations omitted).

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability when a reasonable officer would not understand a search to violate a clearly established right.

Christian v. Payne · filed 2018-10-11

We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. ... We therefore agree with the district court that Defendants also were entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the second search.

A police officer sued under Section 1983 has qualified immunity if an objectively reasonable officer in the same circumstances would not have known that the conduct violated the law.

Conlogue v. Hamilton · filed 2018-10-11

In our view, these facts compel a finding that Hamilton was entitled to qualified immunity.

Medical staff employed by a private contractor at a correctional institution are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

McCoy v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2018-10-15

As Defendants concede in their Reply, the Seventh Circuit has held that medical staff at a correctional institution that are employed by a private contractor, such as Wexford, are not entitled to a qualified-immunity defense. Defendants are thus not entitled to such a defense here.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity for an officer when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Haynes v. Deputy Michael Garner · filed 2018-10-22

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Garner did not provide clear notice of a constitutional violation under the circumstances at issue, and therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Deputy Garner on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for continuing to use force against a subdued detainee when clearly established law makes that force unlawful.

Robinson v. Lambert · filed 2018-10-22

Officer Cole Lambert appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against him for using excessive force. ... Thus, he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar every Section 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment.

Estate of Casillas v. City of Fresno · filed 2018-10-23

For the reasons that follow, the Court will: (I) Deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, and deny qualified immunity for Officer Shipman; (II) Grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment deprivation of familial relationship claim; and (III) Deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' pendent state law claims of battery, wrongful death negligence, and interference with federal or state rights under the Bane Act.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted obligation was not clearly established at the time of their conduct, but qualified immunity does not bar a request for injunctive relief.

Nickler v. County of Clark · filed 2018-10-24

However, this obligation was not clearly established at the time of the searches, cf. id. at 958, so defendants are entitled to qualified immunity except as to Nickler’s request for injunctive relief, see Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 527 (9th Cir. 1989).

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s supported account of gratuitous force would violate clearly established law.

Nosewicz v. Janosko · filed 2018-10-30

If we accept Nosewicz’s version of the events (as we must at this juncture), Janosko is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances the official faced.

Whalen v. McMullen · filed 2018-10-30

To hold McMullen personally liable under § 1983, Whalen’s right to be free from a search in this context must have been clearly established. ... The right Whalen asserts was not clearly established, and McMullen is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit.

Officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant can receive qualified immunity from § 1983 damages even if the warrant lacked probable cause.

Edwards v. Jolliff-Blake · filed 2018-11-01

So, too, do we agree with the district court's conclusion that, even assuming the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct in procuring and executing the warrant.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Libertarian Nat'l Comm. v. Holiday · filed 2018-11-02

To overcome that immunity and collect damages from the KET officials, Patterson first must show that they violated a constitutional right. ... And Patterson fails to show that KET violated those limits here. The district court correctly found the KET officials entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an official whose conduct did not violate a clearly established right that every reasonable official would have known.

Gordon v. Maesaka-Hirata. · filed 2018-11-02

We also hold, however, that although the circuit court applied an incorrect standard for federal qualified immunity, defendant Petra Cho (“Cho”) is not liable for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the federal constitutional violation because the basis of her decision to retain Gordon in pretrial solitary confinement did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which every reasonable official would have known.

An official sued individually under Section 1983 may assert qualified immunity, but dismissal at the pleading stage requires immunity to be established on the face of the complaint.

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Large · filed 2018-11-07

At this time, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate beyond doubt that CSI can prove no set of facts in support of its claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This issue is best addressed at summary judgment in this case.

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

Baxter v. Bracey · filed 2018-11-08

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because Harris’s use of the canine to apprehend Baxter did not violate clearly established law.

In a Section 1983 suit, a material factual dispute about whether an officer faced an imminent threat can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Strand v. Minchuk · filed 2018-11-08

And that is why the district court rightly determined, after a close and careful analysis of the record, that Minchuk was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law at summary judgment on the merits of Strand's claim.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot overcome qualified immunity without showing a constitutional violation.

Moore v. Charles · filed 2018-11-13

Having shown no constitutional violation of any kind, Moore has failed to overcome these defendants’ qualified immunity defenses.

Qualified immunity may not be resolved on summary judgment in a Section 1983 claim when material facts about the officers’ conduct remain disputed.

Freedman v. Ali · filed 2018-11-14

Moreover, the assertion of a qualified immunity defense may not necessarily be resolved as a matter of law, particularly where the resolution of same involves factual disputes. ... As noted above, however, the video does not conclusively show the course of conduct between Freedman and the officers, and for that reason, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this count.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when plaintiffs fail to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Siefert v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs · filed 2018-11-15

Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing a clearly established substantive due process right that the County Defendants have violated. Accordingly, keeping in mind the difficult choices that social workers face, and the government's strong interest in the safety of Minor Siefert, the Court finds that the County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from § 1983 damages when clearly established law would tell an objectively reasonable officer that the use of deadly force was unlawful.

Begin v. Drouin · filed 2018-11-16

So, given that the law at the time the officer in McKenney fired clearly established that that shooting was unlawful on the plaintiff's version of the facts, then the facts here -- as we must assume them to be -- also support such a finding.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for ordering a warrantless blood draw when the conduct violates clearly established law.

Gallegos v. Vernier · filed 2018-11-19

In the absence of a factual distinction regarding the issues of consent between this case and those cited, we conclude that the violative nature of Defendant’s particular conduct here at issue was clearly established and that he is, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s warrantless blood draw claim.

Qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment when a factual dispute undermines the defendant's basis for claiming it.

Tucker v. Torres · filed 2018-11-19

This genuine factual dispute precludes a qualified immunity determination on the basis defendants argue.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for an investigative stop that did not violate clearly established law.

Ernest Foster, Sr. v. Hellawell · filed 2018-11-20

We conclude that Hellawell is entitled to qualified immunity for his initial stop of Foster, and therefore reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment on these Fourth Amendment claims.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against jail personnel when a reasonable official would recognize that placing a female detainee in the male population was unlawful.

De Veloz v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2018-11-21

The conduct at issue here lies so obviously at the very core of what the Eighth Amendment prohibits, that the unlawfulness of placing a female detainee within the male population was readily apparent to any prison officer or medical personnel in the shoes of Nurse Harris and Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia. Accordingly, neither is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can protect an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim even when the officer mistakenly believed the person was resisting arrest.

Jones v. Muniz · filed 2018-11-21

That Lt. Treubig's belief that the plaintiff was resisting arrest was mistaken does not preclude a determination that Lt. Treubig is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, do not show a constitutional violation.

Ronnie LaFleur, Sr. v. St. Elizabeth Hosp Staff ER · filed 2018-11-26

The district court did not err in awarding the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity because Lafleur’s allegations in the district court, taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to him, did not set forth a constitutional violation by the officers.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when they could reasonably believe their conduct was lawful.

Wonsey v. City Of Chicago · filed 2018-11-26

Thus, the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity regarding this claim for June 9.

Officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Trevino v. City of Fort Worth · filed 2018-11-27

In sum, even viewing the allegations most favorably to the Plaintiffs as we must, we conclude that the officers’ conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ deliberate indifference claims against them on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when conflicting evidence creates a genuine dispute over whether officers violated a clearly established right.

Henderson v. City of Woodbury · filed 2018-11-28

The resolution of the conflicting testimony between one officer’s more or less contemporaneous description and all the officers’ subsequent unified deposition testimony is best left to a jury. Therefore, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity.

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

Moore-Jones v. Quick · filed 2018-11-28

The district court erred in concluding Moore-Jones’s right was clearly established. Quick is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Oliver v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. · filed 2018-11-28

Because the plaintiff's right not to be listed in the MSOR was not clearly established at the time the alleged violation occurred, qualified immunity insulates the individual defendants in this case from liability under § 1983.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 unlawful-search claim when no reasonable officer could believe there was probable cause to search.

Emesowum v. City of Houston · filed 2018-11-29

It is obvious that no reasonable officer could conclude that the totality of the circumstances—including that Emesowum had the keys to the car and knew how to unlock it—gave rise to probable cause to believe the car ... contained evidence of a crime. Cruz and To are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on Emesowum’s unlawful-search claim.

A defendant seeking dismissal of a § 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds must show entitlement to immunity on the face of the complaint.

Wells v. Cole · filed 2018-11-30

For reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. ... In his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by terminating his employment because of his public support and endorsement of Cole's former opponent. ... Defendants bring the present motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that this Court should dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Defendants seeking a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity "must show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint."

Section 1983 allows an individual-capacity claim to proceed past dismissal when the complaint plausibly alleges that an official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Denton v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . < · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established rights.

Clark v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . </ · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

A government officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at dismissal when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Mills v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

An official sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at dismissal when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Burns v. Cole THIS IS CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE 6:18-cv-03246-SRB. ALL PLEADINGS ARE TO BE FILED IN T · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established rights.

Gallant v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

An official sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain dismissal based on qualified immunity unless entitlement to immunity appears on the face of the complaint.

Wells v. Cole Do Not File in this Case - Case Consolidated, file in Case No. 18-CV-03241-SRB . </ · filed 2018-11-30

Defendants therefore cannot show that Defendant Cole is entitled to qualified immunity on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when no reasonable officer with the same knowledge could believe probable cause existed.

Oniasse v. Hernandez · filed 2018-12-03

In the § 1983 context, qualified immunity protects an officer if arguable probable cause exists, as opposed to actual probable cause. ... Indeed, a reasonable officer in Deputy Hernandez's circumstances, possessing the same knowledge, could not have believed that probable cause existed to arrest Pastor Oniasse for robbery.

A government official sued for damages under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officials could disagree about whether the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Weinstein v. University of Connecticut · filed 2018-12-04

We conclude that qualified immunity is appropriate here.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Vandevender v. Reiser · filed 2018-12-04

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claim.

A material factual dispute over whether a suspect still posed a threat when an officer used deadly force can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim.

Strand v. Minchuk · filed 2018-12-06

The existence of the substantial factual dispute about the circumstances and timing surrounding Minchuk’s decision to shoot Strand precludes a ruling on qualified immunity at this point.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity from a First Amendment retaliation claim when a reasonable officer would not have known that the plaintiff's speech was protected as a matter of public concern.

Gorman v. Rensselaer Cnty. · filed 2018-12-06

Accordingly, at the time of the alleged violations, a reasonable officer would not have known that it was clearly established law that Gorman's speech constituted a matter of public concern. The Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Gorman's First Amendment retaliation claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison officer from a § 1983 claim alleging that she deliberately falsified disciplinary reports to punish an inmate’s protected activity.

Howard v. Koeller · filed 2018-12-10

Howard alleges that Koeller made deliberate misrepresentations in disciplinary reports with the intent to trigger a punitive response from other inmates. Koeller does not argue that a reasonable prison ... official would be unaware that this deliberate misconduct violated Howard’s constitutional rights, so qualified immunity does not protect her.

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages under Section 1983 when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Kong v. Burnsville, City of · filed 2018-12-14

However, the defense of qualified immunity “protects government officials from incurring civil liability” under Section 1983 if the official’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wealot, 865 F.3d at 1124-25 (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)).

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

Bini v. City of Vancouver · filed 2018-12-17

Officer Aldridge is entitled to qualified immunity on Bini’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. At the time of Bini’s arrests, it was not clearly established in this circuit that an arrest supported by probable cause, but made in retaliation for protected speech, violated the Constitution.

Qualified immunity can justify staying discovery in a § 1983 suit because it protects officials from suit itself, not just liability.

Herrick v. Strong · filed 2018-12-17

Although summary judgment generally should not be granted before the completion of discovery, see e.g., Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988), a stay of discovery was appropriate here because qualified immunity’s determinative impact constitutes more than just a defense to liability—it is immunity from suit altogether.

A university administrator sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity when the asserted equal protection right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Feminist Majority Foundation v. Hurley · filed 2018-12-19

We are thus constrained to conclude that, at the time of President Hurley’s challenged conduct, the equal protection right to be free from a university administrator’s deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual harassment was not clearly established by either controlling authority or by a robust consensus of persuasive authority. Consequently, Hurley is entitled to qualified immunity, and the dismissal of the equal protection claim by the district court must be affirmed.

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

Mendoza v. City of Vancouver · filed 2018-12-19

The district court therefore correctly granted summary judgment to Sergeant Kipp on the basis of qualified immunity. Because the second prong of the qualified immunity test is determinative in this case, we express no views on whether a violation of Mendoza’s constitutional rights occurred.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law prohibits their use of force against an actively resisting suspect.

Dockery v. Blackburn · filed 2018-12-19

Nearly two years later, Dockery sued the officers for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accusing them of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ... For the foregoing reasons, Sergeant Blackburn and Officer Higgins are entitled to qualified immunity. We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.

Qualified immunity does not shield a sheriff from an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave fair warning that refusing to reappoint deputies for their political support was unconstitutional.

Moore v. Smith · filed 2018-12-19

Thus, because Brady is indistinguishable from the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that Sheriff Smith was not given "fair warning" that his alleged conduct violated the constitution. ... Qualified immunity is inapplicable.

Qualified immunity protects an official from a Section 1983 claim based on a medical finding unless a rational juror could find that the official intentionally misstated it; even gross negligence is insufficient.

Dean v. Phatak · filed 2018-12-20

That effort must be undertaken by the district court in the first instance—mindful that unless a rational juror could find that Phatak intentionally misstated his finding, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against an officer who confines a pretrial detainee in more restrictive conditions solely to punish him.

Johnson v. City of Warner Robbins, Georgia · filed 2018-12-20

Moreover, we conclude that it was clearly established that subjecting a pretrial detainee to more restrictive conditions of confinement solely for the purpose of punishment violated clearly established law. ... In summary, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity to Hays on Johnson’s substantive due process claim.

In a Section 1983 suit, once officials show they acted within their discretionary authority, the plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right to overcome qualified immunity.

Wayne Lowe, Sr. v. Smith · filed 2018-12-21

Government officials asserting qualified immunity bear ... the initial burden of showing they were “acting within [their] discretionary authority.” Glasscox, 903 F.3d at 1213 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Lowes do not dispute that the officers were acting under their discretionary authority. The burden therefore shifts to the Lowes to demonstrate that “(1) the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

Vincent v. Stewart · filed 2018-12-21

We affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity in favor of defendants as to Vincent’s claim for damages. ... Here, while we conclude that Vincent raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his First Amendment rights were violated, the constitutional question was not “beyond debate,” see Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011), and qualified immunity was thus proper.

Section 1983 affords an officer qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles · filed 2018-12-21

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity.

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when enforcing a validly enacted law did not violate clearly established rights.

Mich. Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC · filed 2018-12-27

In other words, Secretary Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity in her personal capacity because, at the time of the Order, it was not clearly established that she might violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim at summary judgment when sufficiently supported facts could show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to an inmate.

Axelson v. Watson · filed 2018-12-28

Finally, we conclude that the district court correctly declined to distinguish Krein because the facts the court found sufficiently supported — if credited by a trier of fact — could support a reasonable inference that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to Axelson. ... Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal to the extent defendants challenge the district court’s finding of a material factual dispute, and affirm in all other respects.

Qualified immunity shields a government official from Section 1983 liability unless the facts establish a constitutional violation and the right was clearly established at the time.

Cole v. Rick Encapera · filed 2018-12-28

To determine whether qualified immunity shields a government official’s action from § 1983 liability, courts apply a two-step test and inquire (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff establish a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Parrish v. Dingman · filed 2019-01-02

Qualified immunity shields Dingman from liability in this § 1983 action unless Parrish can show: (1) that Dingman “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... Because he did not violate Parrish’s constitutional rights, Dingman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim when their duty to intervene in the alleged violation was not clearly established.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester · filed 2019-01-02

Therefore, like the court in Echavarria, I find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their failure to intervene claim in a constitutional violation because that violation was not the excessive use of force.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Guertin v. State of Mich. · filed 2019-01-04

First, viewing each defendant individually, did the district court err in denying defendants’ motions to dismiss based upon qualified immunity? ... For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s order denying the motions to dismiss based upon qualified immunity regarding defendants Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Liane Shekter-Smith,2 Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and Bradley Wurfel.

In a § 1983 damages claim against an officer, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity when deciding qualified immunity.

City of Escondido v. Emmons · filed 2019-01-07

Under our cases, the clearly established right must be defined with specificity.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Cruz v. Green · filed 2019-01-07

The Court need not determine whether a constitutional violation occurred because Captain Green is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim regarding his pre-trial confinement. ... As Plaintiff concedes, neither the United States Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court, nor the Eleventh Circuit has held that the specific actions or omissions allegedly undertaken by Captain Green following Plaintiff's bond hearing that resulted in Plaintiff's sleep deprivation violated clearly established law.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a § 1983 political patronage claim when evidence supports a violation of clearly established First Amendment rights.

McKee v. Reuter · filed 2019-01-08

This evidence satisfies Ms. Hickman’s burden to show that her political affiliation and activities were a motivating factor in her dismissal. That there was evidence she made mistakes on the job does not compel the conclusion that she would have been fired in any event, because the outside panel of judges overruled her dismissal and reinstated her. Accordingly, the district court properly denied qualified immunity on Ms. Hickman’s claim against Mr. Reuter.

Social workers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Cox v. Wa Dept. Social & Health Svcs. · filed 2019-01-10

As the social workers did not act with deliberate indifference to the boys’ liberty interest, the district court did not err in concluding that the social workers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an official from damages under Section 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Olivier v. Baca · filed 2019-01-11

Olivier has not demonstrated that the law regarding floor sleeping, in the context of exigent circumstances, was or is clearly established.

Qualified immunity may be granted in a Section 1983 action before the defendants answer when the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation.

Young v. Sandy McCain, Warden · filed 2019-01-14

First, there is no merit to Young’s assertion that the district court erred by “prematurely” granting the defendants qualified immunity at the pre- answer stage.

A sheriff sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for dismissing a road patrol deputy over political affiliation when the deputy’s First Amendment protection was clearly established.

Klossing v. Cole · filed 2019-01-14

Accordingly, Defendant Cole is not entitled to qualified immunity regarding his decision to dismiss Plaintiff.

In a § 1983 suit, an officer who knowingly or recklessly includes material falsehoods in a probable cause affidavit is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Rainsberger v. Benner · filed 2019-01-15

To summarize: if an officer knowingly or recklessly includes false information in an affidavit and that information is not material, he will not be liable in a § 1983 action because the plaintiff will not be able to prove a constitutional violation. But if that information is material, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An official sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the alleged violation was clearly established at the time.

Doe v. University Of Mississippi · filed 2019-01-16

Taking the allegations from the Amended Complaint as true, and assuming Murry or Ussery violated Doe's constitutional rights, Doe does not cite a single case that would put these Defendants on notice that their conduct violated clearly established law. Ussery and Murry are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless they violated a federal right that was clearly established when they acted.

Knouse v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, Inc. · filed 2019-01-17

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.”

Officers lack qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful entry claim when they enter an occupied home without a warrant to ask that music be turned down.

Castagna v. Edwards · filed 2019-01-17

Finding that relief is not merited under the second and third argument, but that the verdict is against the law as to the warrantless entry into the home and that the warrantless entry on the facts at trial is not protected by qualified immunity, Plaintiffs' motion is ALLOWED as to the § 1983 unlawful entry claim against Defendants Edwards, Kaplan, and Jean, but is otherwise DENIED.

Officers lack qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for entering an occupied home without a warrant to address party noise when a reasonable officer would know the entry violated a clearly established right.

Castagna v. Jean · filed 2019-01-17

The court turns here to the second prong and finds the right at issue to be clearly established at the time of Defendants’ warrantless entry into Plaintiffs’ home. ... Here, an objectively reasonable officer in Defendants’ position would have known of Plaintiffs’ right to enjoy the sanctity of their home, and moreover, that the function sought to be performed by the police – having the noise turned down at a party – was well beyond the safety or emergency aid function that would arguably fall within any community caretaking exception.

Qualified immunity does not shield a sheriff from a § 1983 patronage dismissal claim when the deputy’s First Amendment protection was clearly established.

Bruce v. Cole · filed 2019-01-17

Accordingly, Defendant Cole is not entitled to qualified immunity regarding his decision to dismiss Plaintiff.

A sheriff sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for a political patronage dismissal when the deputy’s First Amendment protection was clearly established.

Curtis v. Christian County, Missouri · filed 2019-01-17

Accordingly, Defendant Cole is not entitled to qualified immunity regarding his decision to dismiss Plaintiff.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against an officer when the asserted right was not clearly established under similar circumstances.

Hernandez v. McCraken · filed 2019-01-23

We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Hernandez’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, and remand with instructions to grant McCracken’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to the Fourteenth Amendment claim.