42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity shields an official from § 1983 liability for discretionary conduct unless the conduct violates clearly established federal law.

Cummings v. Dean · filed 2019-01-24

Director Dean’s interpretation and implementation of the Act were therefore matters within his discretion, and he is protected from liability under § 1983 unless his conduct violated clearly-established federal law.

A public official sued under Section 1983 has qualified immunity from individual liability unless the official had fair notice that the alleged conduct would violate the Constitution.

Echols v. Lawton · filed 2019-01-25

When a plaintiff complains that a public official has violated the Constitution, qualified immunity shields the official from individual liability unless he had fair notice that his alleged conduct would violate "the supreme Law of the Land." U.S. Const. Art. VI. Because Lawton lacked that fair notice, he enjoys qualified immunity from Echols's claim of retaliation.

Officials sued under § 1983 receive qualified immunity when reasonable officials could have believed their conduct did not violate the Constitution.

Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-01-28

Ross and Bouffard also receive qualified immunity from the First Amendment retaliation claim because reasonable officials could have believed that revoking Roy's security clearance would not violate the Constitution.

Qualified immunity bars damages under § 1983 against officials in their individual capacities when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Tormasi v. Lanigan · filed 2019-01-28

Accordingly, I must conclude that the defendants' refusal to grant Tormasi's requests for circumcision did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Thus, the free-exercise claims, insofar as they seek damages against the DOC Defendants and Ahsan in their individual capacities, are dismissed without prejudice.

Officers sued individually under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a federal right that was clearly established when they acted.

Baker v. Clements · filed 2019-02-04

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show both that Defendant Officers violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established when Defendant Officers acted.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when the plaintiff does not identify clearly established law that the officer’s specific conduct violated.

Bowser v. Smith · filed 2019-02-04

In any event, the Court dismissed Mr. Bowser’s claims against Sgt. Smith because he had not shown that Sgt. Smith’s conduct violated “clearly established law,” and thus Sgt. Smith had a right to qualified immunity. ... So putting aside Mr. Bowser’s tardiness, his case cannot proceed anyway.

A defendant facing a Section 1983 claim may receive qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Ali v. DuBoise · filed 2019-02-06

We therefore affirm the dismissal of the free-exercise claim, based on qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Hanson v. Best · filed 2019-02-08

Therefore, the right at issue is not clearly established, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Hanson’s excessive force claim.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when it was not objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct lawful on the facts found by the jury.

Grant v. City of Syracuse · filed 2019-02-08

Given this determination of the disputed facts, the jury, and the Court, concluded that it was not objectively reasonable for Officers Lockett and Montalto to believe that their conduct did not violate Mr. Grant's clearly established rights, and therefore, they were not entitled to qualified immunity with regards to Mr. Grant's false arrest claims.

Doctors under contract to provide medical care to prisoners can invoke qualified immunity against Section 1983 damages claims.

Wittkowski v. Levine · filed 2019-02-08

While the Court agrees that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to defendants, ... it is unnecessary for it to analyze their conduct under that doctrine.

Section 1983 defendants are protected by qualified immunity when their conduct violates no statutory or constitutional right.

Ybarra v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-02-08

Because the Officers reasonably used deadly force to prevent Cruz’s escape, they violated no right, and the Court therefore need not address the second, “clearly established” prong. Defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

Private doctors contracted to provide prison medical care may invoke qualified immunity in Section 1983 damages claims.

Wittkowski v. Spencer · filed 2019-02-08

While the Court agrees that the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to defendants, see Husband v. Fair, Civ. A. No. 86-2865-Z, 1993 WL 343669, at *6 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 1993) (holding that doctors under contract with Massachusetts to provide medical services to inmates were entitled to qualified immunity because they fulfilled the Commonwealth’s duty to provide adequate medical care), it is unnecessary for it to analyze their conduct under that doctrine.

Qualified immunity remains a defense to a § 1983 claim, and a lower federal court cannot discard it based on criticism of the doctrine.

Fijalkowski v. Wheeler · filed 2019-02-12

Nonetheless, lower federal courts do not have the authority to abrogate or ignore a judicially-created doctrine sanctioned by the Supreme Court absent a constitutional impediment, which is not present here.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the facts viewed in the plaintiff’s favor could show that an officer shot someone who posed no sufficient threat.

Naselroad v. Mabry · filed 2019-02-14

We find that, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Naselroad, summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is inappropriate. This is so because, first, Naselroad enjoyed a clearly established right not to be shot if he did not present a threat sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a binding court order clearly establishes that their conduct violates constitutional rights.

Maye v. Klee · filed 2019-02-14

The binding order staring the defendants in the face was sufficient to clearly establish the law.

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

Rafferty v. Trumbull Cty., Ohio · filed 2019-02-15

Therefore, Drennen is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable jury could find that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Osterhout v. Morgan · filed 2019-02-19

Officers Morgan and Timms moved for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, asserting qualified immunity. ... For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officer Morgan on summary judgment.

Local government entities cannot assert qualified immunity against § 1983 claims.

Cox v. Clayton County School District · filed 2019-02-25

A local government entity like the board is not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state officials are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiffs fail to show that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Milner v. Mares · filed 2019-02-25

Plaintiffs made no effort, either in the district court or now on appeal, to cite to any Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit case decided before May 2014 that clearly established the constitutional rights they allege Defendants violated. Nor have we found any factually analogous case that clearly established those rights. In light of that, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to dismiss this action on the basis of qualified immunity.

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

Hausauer v. City of Mesa · filed 2019-02-27

Summary judgment was proper on Hausauer’s unlawful arrest claim against defendant Woods because Woods was entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Godbout v. Zimmerman · filed 2019-02-27

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from § 1983 damage actions if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Here, the Court addresses the second prong and concludes the rights asserted in were not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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

Parker v. Henry & William Evans Home · filed 2019-03-01

Accordingly, Austin and the DSS Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, thereby barring Appellants’ Fourth Amendment claims against Austin and the DSS Defendants.

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence claim depends on whether the underlying right was clearly established when the defendant acted.

Deforte v. Borough of Worthington · filed 2019-03-04

Instead, the Court reads Halsey as stating that the right to be free from prosecution based on fabricated evidence existed before 2014.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a jury could find that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Lance Corporal Kyle Strickland · filed 2019-03-05

Therefore, the officers are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the district court correctly denied their motions.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim for striking a restrained, unresisting person in the head with a gun and standing on his head.

Hall v. Sergeant Dan McGhee · filed 2019-03-06

We cannot find that a reasonable officer in Sergeant McGhee’s position would believe the conduct alleged to be lawful and sanctioned by the Constitution. As such, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Sergeant McGhee on the claims that he hit Mr. Hall in the face with a gun and stood on Mr. Hall’s head.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of showing that an officer violated clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity.

Morrow v. Meachum · filed 2019-03-08

The second question-whether the officer violated clearly established law-is a doozy. The § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of proof.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law made their conduct objectively unreasonable.

Gunter v. Cicero · filed 2019-03-11

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on either Count I or II.

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

Jackson v. McCurry · filed 2019-03-12

We conclude that all of the school officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against public officials when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Jain v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Butler School Dist. 53 · filed 2019-03-12

Count I is A's claim against the Administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ... Because plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of showing the existence of clearly-established law that prohibited the Administrators' actions, the Court grants summary judgment to those defendants on Count I on the ground of qualified immunity.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Jain v. Butler Illinois School District 53 · filed 2019-03-12

Because plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of showing the existence...of clearly-established law that prohibited the Administrators’ actions, the Court grants summary judgment to those defendants on Count I on the ground of qualified immunity.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 seizure claim when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Dia Fredyma, Plaintiff v. Daniel J. Hurley, Defendant · filed 2019-03-13

So, in the context of this case, the relevant inquiry is whether it was “at least arguable” that probable cause existed to believe that Fredyma was “intoxicated” under RSA 172-B. It was. Consequently, even if Officer Hurley had violated Fredyma’s constitutionally protected right to be free from unreasonable seizures (he did not), he would, nonetheless, be entitled to the protections afforded by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Simmons v. Drum · filed 2019-03-18

Therefore, the Court will deny Drum’s motion to dismiss Simmons’ individual-capacity claim against him in Count I based on qualified immunity.

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

Noyola v. Hammond · filed 2019-03-19

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

Probation officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity for bringing a probation violation charge when they reasonably believed there was probable cause.

Dettelis v. Sharbaugh · filed 2019-03-20

Because it was objectively reasonable for the Appellees to believe that there was probable cause that Dettelis violated the conditions of his probation, Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Jessop v. City of Fresno · filed 2019-03-20

Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Anderson v. Snyder · filed 2019-03-20

In Count 2, Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Deputy Fennell's actions in response to the second 911 call violated Decedent's rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. ... Here, I do not need to consider whether Defendant Fennell's actions constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment because I find that, even if there were such a violation, it was not clearly established. ... Accordingly, I find that Defendant Fennell is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in response to the second 911 call.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a constitutional right.

Darryl Pernell Butler v. Davis · filed 2019-03-21

Because Butler cannot show an essential element of his claim that Howell and Davis violated his First Amendment right against retaliation, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officers from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Lachance v. Town of Charlton, Corp. · filed 2019-03-21

Accordingly, I find that officers did not violate Plaintiff's clearly established rights by pushing him over the sofa.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity on a separate excessive force claim when the force did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional right.

Wilson v. Ferguson · filed 2019-03-21

Taken together, the evidence, even viewed in Wilson’s favor, demonstrates Ferguson did not apply force that deprived Wilson of his constitutional right to be free from the use of excessive force. As a result, Ferguson is entitled to qualified immunity on the part of Wilson’s excessive force claim that is not subsumed in the unlawful detention claim.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 wrongful arrest liability when they reasonably believe probable cause exists, even if that belief is mistaken.

Tyree Bell v. Neukirch · filed 2019-03-21

Given the totality of the circumstances, the officers could reasonably believe probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff, so they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 excessive force claims may proceed when disputed facts could show that officers shot a person who posed no immediate danger, in violation of clearly established law.

Greer v. Ivey · filed 2019-03-25

These counts include the § 1983 claims, because the law was clearly established at the time of Randall’s death that shooting a person who has done nothing threatening and thus never posed an immediate danger violates the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when existing precedent clearly established that the alleged conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Estate of Jaime Ceballos v. Husk · filed 2019-03-26

We conclude, then, that this court's decision in Allen adequately notified Officer Husk that his conduct in confronting Ceballos (as we accept the facts here) violated the Fourth Amendment. We, therefore, affirm the district court's decision to deny Officer Husk qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when an official familiar with the known facts and applicable law would understand that the conduct violated clearly established rights.

Brumfield Jr. v. Workman · filed 2019-03-26

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the circuit court did not err by failing to dismiss claims against Deputy Brumfield on the basis of qualified immunity and denying his post-trial motions on that issue. ... An official familiar with the facts then known and the law then applicable would have reasonably believed that his conduct was violating clearly established law.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an official entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted right was not clearly established in the specific context of the case.

Ryan v. Fabela · filed 2019-03-26

We hold that a reasonable official in Fabela’s position might have concluded that Ryan was a policymaker, and that Fabela is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an official from damages under Section 1983 when the law did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful at the time.

Arizmendi v. Brownsville Indep Sch Dist · filed 2019-03-26

But Arizmendi has not persuaded us that Gabbert’s actions were then illicit by clearly established law. Gabbert is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants seeking dismissal on qualified immunity grounds must show their entitlement on the face of the complaint; officials who inhibit access to funds needed to post bail may be denied immunity when the right to release on bail is clearly established.

Hazley v. Roy · filed 2019-03-26

Defendants seeking dismissal of § 1983 claims under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the qualified-immunity doctrine "must show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint." ... A reasonable official at MCF-Moose Lake would understand that inhibiting Hazley's access to his funds would prevent him from being released on bail (even if it was Hennepin County that would actually release him).

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim on the pleadings when discovery is needed to assess the defense.

Stone v. Worcester County Sherriffs Office · filed 2019-03-26

The applicability of a qualified immunity or “good faith” defense cannot be decided without discovery.

A § 1983 defendant may be denied qualified immunity when a robust consensus of persuasive authority clearly establishes the right allegedly violated.

Hazley v. State of MN · filed 2019-03-26

But even absent controlling authority from the Eight Circuit or Supreme Court, a denial of qualified immunity may be based on “a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority that places the constitutional question beyond debate.” Hanson, 915 F.3d at 548 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Three circuit courts have found a liberty interest in being free from detention once bail has been set, and no circuit court has held to the contrary.

Qualified immunity shields officials from damages under Section 1983 when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Cremeans v. William Wrenn, Christopher Kench, Michael Zenk, Jon Fouts, and Nichole Kipphut · filed 2019-03-28

Accordingly, as to the removal of the grandchild from Cremeans’s visitor list that lasted from February 2017 until the trained chaperone restriction was imposed in July 2017, defendants are shielded from liability under Count I by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest that violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Watson v. City of Burton · filed 2019-03-28

Finally, we agree that it was clearly established at the time of the seizure and arrest that police officers may not seize a person in his home in the absence of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, and Defendants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Sampedro v. Schriro · filed 2019-03-28

Even if the Court were to assume arguendo that the Complaint stated a plausible Fourth Amendment violation, however, Trooper Kores would still be entitled to qualified immunity because Trooper Kores did not violate any clearly established right under the circumstances presented here.

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

Morgan v. Robinson · filed 2019-03-29

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” ... Robinson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 false arrest claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when disputed facts about the officer’s knowledge affect whether the arrest was reasonable.

Scheidler v. Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority · filed 2019-03-29

Defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage, either.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when the officer is not entitled to it on the record at that stage.

Gaetani v. Hadley · filed 2019-03-29

As a result—and because Defendant is not, at least at this stage, entitled to qualified immunity—that count survives. Thus, Counts III (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and V (assault and battery) will be tried.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive-force claim based on officers kneeling on a person’s back after restraint when that right was clearly established.

Lachance v. Town of Charlton · filed 2019-03-21

Accordingly, I find it was clearly established that Plaintiff had a constitutional right to be free from an officer kneeling on his back after he had been restrained. ... Therefore, I conclude that Plaintiff’s excessive force claim survives insofar as it is based on officers kneeling on his back.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when an unjustified warrantless entry violates clearly established law.

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas · filed 2019-03-30

As discussed below, Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing that an exception to the warrant requirement justified Pollard's entry onto Plaintiffs' enclosed porch, and Pollard's constitutional violation in this regard violated clearly established law. Consequently, Plaintiffs' proximate cause theory of liability will be treated on the merits.

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

McGuire v. Sturch · filed 2019-03-31

Consequently, the Court concludes that even if Plaintiff had proven that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity inoculates Defendant given thoserights were not clearly established.

Officers sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity from a warrantless arrest claim when probable cause was at least arguable.

D'Ambrosio v. Methuen, City of · filed 2019-03-31

In the context of a warrantless arrest, the First Circuit has held that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the presence of probable cause is at least arguable. ... That standard is met here, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim depends on whether the facts show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established when the defendant acted.

Bonny Edward Taylor v. Hughes · filed 2019-04-03

There are two parts to the qualified-immunity analysis: (1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of defendant’s conduct.

Section 1983 claims against prison health care providers can be defeated by qualified immunity when the care provided was objectively reasonable.

Ellason v. Odall · filed 2019-04-03

The uncontested summary judgment evidence shows that Ellason’s extensive and well-documented examinations and treatments were at least objectively reasonable for purposes of qualified immunity and in no way a manifestation of deliberate indifference to any serious medical need.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Shepherd v. City of Shreveport · filed 2019-04-03

“Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.” ... As such, even if Corporal Tucker’s use of force was unreasonably excessive based on the totality of circumstances in this case (which we hold it was not), we also affirm the district court’s alternate determination that Corporal Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Jeri Rich v. Palko · filed 2019-04-03

Consequently, Rich has not shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, and the officers are entitled to QI.

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

Jacoby v. Mack · filed 2019-04-03

Therefore, Winky and McCants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment is granted in their favor as to this claim.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity from false arrest and false imprisonment claims when they violated no constitutional right or the asserted right was not clearly established.

Fitzgerald v. Cnty. of Lehigh · filed 2019-04-04

The court finds that (1) there was no violation of Fitzgerald's constitutional rights and (2), even if there was a violation, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident. Therefore, the Detectives have qualified immunity with respect to Fitzgerald's false arrest and false imprisonment claims under section 1983.

Qualified immunity does not protect an official who seeks an arrest warrant using an affidavit that gives no facts supporting probable cause when the rule requiring those facts was clearly established.

Blake v. Lambert · filed 2019-04-05

We hold that Blake established a Malley violation at the summary judgment stage. ... We also hold that this was clearly established when Lambert swore his affidavit. ... The district court correctly denied summary judgment on the Malley claim based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 damages claim when no clearly established law put the officer on notice of a duty to release an arrestee after a low breathalyzer result.

Calhoun v. Buck · filed 2019-04-05

Given the Tenth Circuit's clear pronouncement, ... this Court concludes that even if, as Calhoun argues, a .037 BAC eliminated probable cause to arrest and detain her for DUI, Buck was not on notice of a recognized duty to release her and is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer defending a § 1983 claim who shows that the challenged conduct fell within his discretionary authority satisfies the initial burden for qualified immunity, shifting the burden to the plaintiff.

Doe v. City of Miami Gardens · filed 2019-04-09

Here, there is no genuine dispute that Sgt. Romaguera was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he arrived at the scene of Plaintiff's reported suicide attempt, transported her in his police vehicle, and took her to the hotel.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 false arrest claim when the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Kiersten Quick v. State Trooper Joseph Geddie · filed 2019-04-11

Quick’s complaint against Trooper Geddie for false arrest is barred by qualified immunity because he had arguable probable cause to arrest her for obstruction of a law enforcement officer, Ga. Code Ann. § 16-10-24(a).

A Section 1983 plaintiff need not plead the absence of qualified immunity, and a complaint that plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established rights can survive a motion to dismiss.

Blacher v. Village of Dolton · filed 2019-04-12

The Court cannot conclude from the face of the complaint that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... A plaintiff is not required to plead around an anticipated qualified immunity defense.

A jail physician sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence does not show that she recognized and disregarded a detainee’s strong likelihood of suicide.

Baker-Schneider v. Napoleon · filed 2019-04-16

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims as to all defendants, except for the § 1983 claim against Huq. ... Because the record contains no evidence that Schneider showed before Huq a strong likelihood that he would commit suicide, nor evidence that Huq disregarded that risk, we conclude as a matter of law that Huq is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are protected from liability under Section 1983 by qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Hollstein v. City of Zion · filed 2019-04-16

Police officers “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” ... Here, the undisputed facts compel the conclusion that Vines and Hucker are entitled to qualified immunity.

A deputy sued under § 1983 can be denied qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Dyksma v. Pierson · filed 2019-04-18

For the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we agree that Pierson is not entitled to qualified or official immunity.

When an officer raises qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action, the plaintiff bears the burden of negating it.

Lewis v. City of Shreveport · filed 2019-04-18

Because Cpl. Bordelon has properly raised the defense of qualified immunity, Lewis has the burden of negating it.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when no constitutional violation occurred.

Walker v. City of Pocatello · filed 2019-04-18

Because no constitutional violation occured, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Walker’s § 1983 claim.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff pleads facts showing a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Crall v. Wilson · filed 2019-04-19

In assessing a qualified immunity defense at this stage, we must determine whether the plaintiff pled facts indicating: (1) the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) that right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive force claim when a jury could find that an officer tased or pepper sprayed a person who was not resisting arrest, in violation of a clearly established right.

Saunders v. Cuyahoga Metro. Housing Authority · filed 2019-04-23

Consistent with our analysis above, a reasonable jury could also find that Officer Ali violated Saunders’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force when he tased or pepper sprayed Saunders while Saunders was not resisting arrest.

Section 1983 permits damages claims against state officials for violations of federal rights, subject to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of clearly established law.

Waller v. City of Fort Worth Texas, e · filed 2019-04-24

A state official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from damages, which protects the official from liability for any act that was not objectively unreasonable at the time of the act. ... If this allegation is true, then qualified immunity would not shield Hoeppner from the plaintiffs’ excessive-force claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the alleged force violated a Fourth Amendment right that was clearly established at the time.

Johnnie Rochell, Jr. v. Ross · filed 2019-04-25

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, City of Springdale Detective Cody Ross appeals the district court’s1 interlocutory orders denying him qualified and statutory immunity on excessive-force and false-imprisonment claims asserted against him by Johnnie Rochell, Jr. ... We further conclude that this right was clearly established in February 2016, when the incident underlying Rochell’s claims occurred. ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when no sufficiently similar precedent clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Emmons v. City of Escondido · filed 2019-04-25

Given the Court’s admonition, we are unable to find a case so precisely on point with this one as to satisfy the Court’s demand for specificity. Officer Craig is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Howell v. Tran · filed 2019-04-25

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tran on Howell’s deliberate indifference claim arising out of the cell-covering incident on September 14, 2015 on the basis of qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Tran’s conduct violated the Eighth Amendment.

A correctional officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim at dismissal when the alleged malicious use of force against a handcuffed, nonresisting prisoner violated clearly established law.

Ali v. Lambert · filed 2019-04-25

Accepting as true Ali's allegations that Kaiser acted deliberately and maliciously with the intent to cause Ali pain by manipulating Ali's arms while Ali was handcuffed and offering no resistance, Dkt. # 83, at 7-8, these cases support Ali's assertion that the law governing Kaiser's alleged conduct was clearly established. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Kaiser is not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no statutory or constitutional right or when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Reed v. Taylor · filed 2019-05-02

The officials are thus entitled to qualified immunity under either prong.

An officer may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when probable cause exists to arrest and prosecute.

Tiburcio v. City of New York · filed 2019-05-07

Furthermore, the existence of probable cause to arrest and prosecute plaintiff entitled Officer Martinez to qualified immunity under the circumstances ( see e.g. Amore v Novarro , 624 F3d 522 [2d Cir 2010]).

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the pleadings alone do not show that the alleged rights were not clearly established.

Unitt v. Spencer · filed 2019-05-07

Assuming, without deciding, that the Medical Defendants can invoke qualified immunity, the court denies their motion to dismiss with regard to this defense. Unitt has adequately pled Eighth Amendment violations by Novoa, Holowacki, Brown, and Richards. Her theory of liability is not so novel that the court can determine, based on the pleadings alone, that her rights were not “clearly established” or that a reasonable person would not have been aware of said rights.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that a correction officer independently confiscated prescribed medical aids without medical authorization.

Arriaga v. Gage · filed 2019-05-09

On these facts, Defendant’s claim of qualified immunity cannot stand.

Section 1983 does not afford officers qualified immunity for a warrantless reentry when clearly established law would have told them they needed a warrant or an exception.

Fairbanks v. O'Hagan · filed 2019-05-10

Once the officers conducted the initial protective sweep, secured the apartment and subsequently left to wait for the department photographer, they should have known that they needed a warrant or some other excuse to the warrant requirement to reenter. Accordingly, defendants cannot benefit from the doctrine of qualified immunity with respect to the search of the apartment after the initial protective sweep.

Officers cannot obtain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable officer would have known their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Fairbanks v. Danvers, Town of · filed 2019-05-10

Accordingly, defendants cannot benefit from the doctrine of qualified immunity with respect to the search of the apartment after the initial protective sweep.

Officers sued individually under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no constitutional right.

Ali v. Raleigh County · filed 2019-05-14

Because the Defendants had probable cause to suspect that Mr. Ali as well as Mr. Johnson were engaged in illegal drug activity, Mr. Ali’s arrest was not objectively unreasonable, and the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacity as Ali cannot establish that a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights occurred.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when factual disputes permit a finding that officials affirmatively created a danger and acted with deliberate indifference to it.

Davis v. Riverside School District · filed 2019-05-14

We affirm the district court’s ruling that the Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Powell v. Simon · filed 2019-05-14

As such, Leahy cannot establish a constitutional violation, providing the IDNR Defendants with qualified immunity from Leahy’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 individual-capacity claims may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds when the plaintiff fails to adequately allege a constitutional violation.

Wilson v. Grimes · filed 2019-05-15

Further, the district court did not err in dismissing ... claims against Grimes and Ottesen in their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity based on Wilson’s failure to adequately allege a constitutional violation.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the officer's use of force does not violate the Constitution.

Napier v. County Commission of Lincoln County · filed 2019-05-16

Therefore, the Court finds Defendant Sowards did not use excessive force and he is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Perez v. City of Roseville · filed 2019-05-21

Because it was not clearly established that the defendants violated Perez’s constitutional rights, the defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity on each of Perez’s claims.

In a § 1983 claim, a good-faith qualified immunity defense places the burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant is not entitled to immunity.

Valderas v. City of Lubbock · filed 2019-05-21

A good-faith qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof. Although we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 claim, once an officer shows that the challenged conduct was within his discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF THOMASTON · filed 2019-05-21

Plaintiff does not dispute that Officer Tobin was exercising his discretionary authority when he detained, frisked, tased, and arrested Plaintiff. Thus, the burden lies with Plaintiff to show that Officer Tobin violated his clearly established constitutional rights during those events.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when material factual disputes prevent the court from deciding whether the officers violated a clearly established right.

Nunez v. City of San Jose · filed 2019-05-23

Thus, at summary judgment, the Court cannot conclude that Officers Santos and Vizzusi are entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the § 1983 claim for excessive force.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 medical care claim when clearly established due process rights make it unreasonable to leave a seriously ill person without a way to reach a hospital.

Harper v. Booth · filed 2019-05-23

Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish that 1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and 2) the right was "clearly established" at the time of the challenged conduct. ... Here, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that individuals have fundamental Due Process rights with respect to their property and medical care. Thus, it was unreasonable for Booth to leave Harper without an option to get to the hospital after Harper told him he was suffering from a serious medical condition.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 medical-care claim when the officer unreasonably leaves a person in his care without a way to reach a hospital despite knowing of a serious medical condition.

Harper v. Massachusetts State Police · filed 2019-05-23

Here, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that individuals have fundamental Due Process rights with respect to their property and medical care. Thus, it was unreasonable for Booth to leave Harper without an option to get to the hospital after Harper told him he was suffering from a serious medical condition.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing case law does not clearly establish that their conduct is unlawful.

Nicholas v. Bratton · filed 2019-05-23

At the very least, then, Defendants Davis and DeBonis are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, given the lack of case law that considers the consequences of violating a time, place, and manner restriction as part of the tailoring inquiry when assessing that restriction.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from Section 1983 liability when the officer’s conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Williams v. City of Georgetown, Ky. · filed 2019-05-24

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where that officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights. ... Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions during the stop.

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

Johns v. City of Eugene · filed 2019-05-24

Because the information that the officers obtained during the course of that investigation was “sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested,” Lopez, 482 F.3d at 1072, the officers did not violate clearly established federal law when they arrested Johns. Therefore we find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and we reverse the district court’s order and remand for entry of judgment.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 unlawful seizure claim when the officers' seizure was objectively reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Joseph v. Donahue · filed 2019-05-28

Because the Defendant Officers' seizure of Joseph was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure in Count I.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officers when their seizure of the plaintiff does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Joseph v. Saint Paul City of the · filed 2019-05-28

Because the Defendant Officers’ seizure of Joseph was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim for unlawful seizure in Count I.

Section 1983 claims against prison officials are subject to qualified immunity when the officials could not have known that a prisoner’s detention was unlawful.

Andrew v. Buskirk · filed 2019-05-29

He further argues that the defendants’ refusal to credit his Northampton sentence in this manner renders them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights. ... Here, none of the defendants could have known that Andrew was being subject to unwarranted punishment, as it is not clear under Pennsylvania law that his punishment was actually unwarranted. ... As a result, each the defendants is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his claims.

An officer sued for damages under Section 1983 is ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity for reasonably relying on a duly enacted statute.

Tschida v. Motl · filed 2019-05-29

In sum, it was not unreasonable for Commissioner Motl to rely on the constitutionality of Montana’s duly enacted confidentiality statute, given the differences between Montana law and the law at issue in Lind. Accordingly, we conclude that Commissioner Motl is entitled to qualified immunity and affirm the judgment in his favor.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Chixapkaid D. Michael Pavel v. University of Oregon · filed 2019-05-29

First, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, finding Pavel’s § 1983 claims barred by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against school officials when a reasonable official would not have known that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Cox v. South Sanpete School District · filed 2019-05-30

Because the law is not clearly established that a single occurrence like this might give rise to liability under Section 1983 and because—under the facts alleged—a reasonable person in the position of the Individual Defendants would not have known that there was a violation of rights, the Equal Protection claims against the Individual Defendants fail.

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

Crockett v. Venalonzo · filed 2019-05-30

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Crockett’s Fourth Amendment claim related to Crockett’s fecal sample on the basis of qualified immunity because defendant’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when the officer had arguable probable cause.

Oquendo v. City of New York · filed 2019-05-31

But even if these facts were insufficient to establish probable cause and continuing probable cause, they are plainly sufficient to establish “arguable” probable cause.

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim when existing precedent gave clear notice that retaliatory speech could support the claim.

Greisen v. Hanken · filed 2019-05-31

In addition, Hanken is not entitled to qualified immunity on the theory that he would not reasonably have known at the time of his actions that a First Amendment retaliation claim could be based in part on acts of retaliatory speech.

A § 1983 plaintiff need not plead around a qualified immunity defense.

Denwiddie v. Mueller · filed 2019-05-31

There is no duty to plead around a qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 shields an officer from wrongful-arrest liability when objective facts reasonably indicate probable cause.

BAHGAT v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK · filed 2019-05-31

Tota, and by extension, East Brunswick, is immune from liability under § 1983.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Fischer v. Josh Hoven · filed 2019-06-03

Hoven is entitled to qualified immunity unless Fischer can show: (1) that he “violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... Because Hoven’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, he did not violate the Fourth Amendment and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages when officials did not violate a clearly established federal right.

Kozlowski v. Van Rybroek · filed 2019-06-04

Kozlowski cannot demonstrate that the defendants violated a clearly established federal right. Government officials receive qualified immunity from damages when their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”—the right must be defined with “specificity” at the time of the events.

A police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim when a reasonable officer would understand that retaliating against a person for asserting First Amendment rights is unlawful.

Campbell v. Mack · filed 2019-06-04

Mack is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Campbell’s First Amendment retaliation claim. When the events at issue occurred, the right to be free from retaliation at the hands of police officers for asserting one’s First Amendment rights was “sufficiently clear” that a reasonable officer would have understood that retaliating against Campbell as a result of his complaints would violate his First Amendment rights.

In a § 1983 qualified-immunity analysis, the question is whether the officer violated a federally protected right, not whether the officer followed school policy or state law.

Lori Wash. ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist. · filed 2019-06-05

This argument does not address qualified immunity in a § 1983 action. The critical question is whether Officer Paley violated J.W.'s federally protected rights, not whether he followed school policies or state law.

Section 1983 does not give officers qualified immunity for an investigative stop without particularized reasonable suspicion when that requirement was clearly established.

Heard v. City of Red Wing · filed 2019-06-05

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to their initial encounter with Heard.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts do not establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Banks v. Jones · filed 2019-06-06

In sum, Jones failed to state factual allegations that allege a deprivation of any constitutional right. Her conclusory and unsupported assertions simply will not suffice. Banks is thus entitled to qualified immunity against the Section 1983 claims and statutory immunity against the state law claims.

Section 1983 requires a causal connection between each defendant’s conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation, so qualified immunity must be assessed separately for each defendant.

Norris v. Detective N.D. Prescott · filed 2019-06-12

“Because § 1983 ‘requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the official’s acts or omissions and the alleged constitutional deprivation,’ each defendant is entitled to an independent qualified-immunity claim, considering ... only the actions and omissions in which that particular defendant engaged.”

Police officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law would tell a reasonable officer that the arrest violated a right.

Vanderklok v. United States · filed 2019-06-12

Here, Vanderklok has not brought forward any authority, and we can find none, establishing that probable cause to arrest an individual for disorderly conduct is lacking when that individual has made an angry statement about bombs in an airport’s TSA screening area. For that reason alone, Vanderklok’s argument against immunity fails.

Section 1983 allows an excessive force claim against an officer to proceed when, viewing disputed facts in the plaintiff’s favor, the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law and qualified immunity does not apply.

Clawson v. Rigney · filed 2019-06-13

These two cases suffice to show the violation of a clearly established right, again making all factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. ... McKinney and Mercado clearly established that under these facts in the summary judgment record, the use of force was excessive. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment on Clawson’s excessive force claim.

Officials sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are protected by qualified immunity unless every reasonable official would have understood that their conduct was unlawful.

Honesto v. Newsom · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly dismissed Honesto’s conditions-of-confinement claim against defendants Schwarzenegger, Hartley, and Adams in their individual capacities because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that housing Honesto in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clear to every reasonable official.

Smith v. Yates · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that housing Smith in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances.

Section 1983 claims against officials are subject to qualified immunity when the alleged unlawfulness was not clear to every reasonable official.

Duran v. Lewis · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly dismissed Duran’s action because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that housing Duran in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity protects an official from a Section 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of the official’s conduct would not have been clear to every reasonable official.

Franklin v. Giurbino · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly dismissed Franklin’s action because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that relying on a nurse’s judgment that there was no medical reason prohibiting Franklin’s prison transfer was unlawful under the circumstances.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Davis v. Yates · filed 2019-06-13

However, after the district court’s order was entered, this court in Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner’s “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. Because the district court did not have the benefit of the decision in Hines when it entered its order, we vacate the denial of qualified immunity as to Davis’s deliberate indifference claims against Yates and Cate, and remand with instructions to grant Yates and Cate’s motion to dismiss.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the alleged unlawfulness would not have been clear to every reasonable official under the circumstances.

Cunningham v. Norm Kramer · filed 2019-06-13

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that detaining Cunningham in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever was endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Shabazz v. Igbinosa · filed 2019-06-13

However, after the district court’s order was entered, this court in Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner’s “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. Because the district court did not have the benefit of the decision in Hines when it entered its order, we vacate the denial of qualified immunity as to Shabazz’s deliberate indifference claims against Igbinosa, and remand with instructions to grant Igbinosa’s motion to dismiss.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when they reasonably believe probable cause exists and no clearly established law alerts them otherwise.

Garcia v. City of Santa Clara · filed 2019-06-14

Finally, we note that even if officers did not have probable cause to arrest Garcia under either statute, summary judgment would still have been proper because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Ellington v. City of Mesa · filed 2019-06-14

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ellington’s unlawful arrest claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established rights.

In a § 1983 suit, once officers establish that they acted within their discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Hinson v. R.A. Bias · filed 2019-06-14

Because Defendant Officers have established that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden shifts to Hinson to demonstrate that qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a Section 1983 claim for disclosing driver information when the statutory right to privacy was clearly established.

Diamond v. Hastie · filed 2019-06-18

Diamond's statutory right not to have her personal information (including her email) disclosed by the License Commissioner was clearly established. ... As such, the Court finds that Hastie is not entitled to qualified immunity. ... The court’s findings apply to both the statutory violation of the DPPA and the Section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 allows state officials to claim qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a clearly established federal right.

Fails v. Harbaugh · filed 2019-06-18

In §1983 actions, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from personal liability for official conduct so long as the conduct is objectively reasonable and does not violate an inmate’s clearly-established federal rights. ... Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars damages under § 1983 when the law did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

Eves v. LePage · filed 2019-06-19

Applying this objective test, we conclude that the law on which Eves relies was not clearly established such that a reasonable governor in LePage's situation would have concluded that the constitutional question and the policymaker exception was placed beyond doubt in Eves's favor.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Abney v. White · filed 2019-06-19

Lastly, even if the Court were to find that Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated in this case, qualified immunity would shield Defendant from suit because Plaintiffs constitutional rights were not “clearly established” at the time such that a reasonably prudent officer in Defendant’s position would have known of those rights.

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

Scott v. Hirsch · filed 2019-06-19

Because Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show that the federal right that Defendant allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false arrest claim.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when existing precedent gives them fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Slater v. Deasey · filed 2019-06-20

We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity as to the use of the second and third hobbles.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established at the time.

Lane v. Nading · filed 2019-06-20

Given the governing law, we hold that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an official from a retaliation claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.

Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas · filed 2019-06-21

We thus agree with the district court that Evans is entitled to qualified immunity on Harmon’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent does not clearly establish that their conduct violates a constitutional right.

Sena v. Coleman · filed 2019-06-21

Because existing precedent has not placed beyond debate the question whether, given the information available to Coleman and Clinkscale, double celling a person like Sena with a person like Allen would violate Sena’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a warrantless-entry claim when the law does not clearly establish that the administrative inspection exception is inapplicable under the circumstances.

Devon W. Brown v. City of Atlanta · filed 2019-06-25

Turning to the appeal of the Individual Defendants, we disagree with the district court and conclude that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. With respect to the Officers’ initial entry into the club, we conclude that the law is not clearly established that the administrative inspection exception to the warrant requirement would not be applicable under the circumstances with which the Officers were faced.

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

Savage v. Troutt · filed 2019-06-25

Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Troutt on the basis of qualified immunity for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s recommendation of January 25, 2018, and supplemental recommendation of June 4, 2018, as adopted by the district court on March 20, 2018, and July 26, 2018, respectively.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when plaintiffs fail to identify clearly established law supporting their constitutional claims.

N.E.L. v. Gildner · filed 2019-06-25

Likewise, the Kansas defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ seizure and detention-related claims in this case, because plaintiffs have failed to present clearly established law that supports their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for an unlawful seizure is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer had arguable probable cause, even without actual probable cause.

Rivera v. Carvajal · filed 2019-06-27

Second, Officer’s Raible’s entitlement to qualified immunity does not require actual probable cause. It requires only that he had “arguable probable cause” to believe that Rivera and Copeland were engaged in a burglary.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

YOUNG v. CORTUNE · filed 2019-06-27

Thus, this Court finds Defendants have satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis as to all claims and all claims, under § 1983 and the NJCRA, must be dismissed.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Berkshire v. Dahl · filed 2019-06-28

Berkshire had a clearly established right to have his suicidal tendencies attended to, and evidence supports the inference that Beauvais and Sermo acted with deliberate indifference toward Berkshire’s medical needs. Beauvais and Sermo are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when they violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Watson v. Pearson · filed 2019-06-28

In sum, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated Watson’s constitutional rights and because those rights were clearly established when the incident occurred.

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

Clark v. Jody Reed · filed 2019-06-28

Qualified immunity insulates government officials from suits for damages when their conduct did not violate specifically defined federal rights that were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Qualified immunity protects officials from liability under Section 1983 when they have not violated a clearly established right.

Caballero v. Boney · filed 2019-06-28

The Court has determined as a matter of law that no constitutional violation occurred and that Defendants did not violate a clearly established right, therefore, qualified immunity applies and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will also be granted on this basis.

Section 1983 allows an excessive-force claim against correctional officers to proceed when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right and the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kelly v. West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority · filed 2019-07-02

Because this conduct is alleged to have been purposeful, excessive, and in violation of clearly established rights of a pre-trial detainee such as plaintiff to be free of such unwarranted attack and abuse, the defendant correctional officers, who are charged with misconduct that went far beyond their discretionary function, are not at this juncture on this record entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, dismissal of the Count I assault and battery claim and the Count IV § 1983 claim as to defendants Barrett, Graham, Dillard, Wood, Miller, and Channel is denied.