42 U.S.C. § 1983

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff fails to identify factually relevant, clearly established law.

Ayala v. Aransas County · filed 2019-07-02

Given Ayala’s failure to point to clearly established law that is factually relevant, we agree with the district court that Ciarletta is entitled to qualified immunity on this record.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability for a mistaken arrest when an officer reasonably believed probable cause existed.

Lindsey v. Adkinson · filed 2019-07-02

Jewell reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest Lindsey. That belief turned out to be mistaken. Qualified immunity protects public officials from exactly these kinds of mistakes.

A § 1983 plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage by alleging facts showing a violation of a right that was clearly established when the official acted.

Piper Partridge v. City of Benton, Arkansas · filed 2019-07-03

To overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011), quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... Keagan’s right to be free from excessive force under these circumstances was clearly established in October 2016.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a § 1983 equal protection claim when a clearly established rule applies with obvious clarity to their alleged conduct.

A.N. v. Alamogordo Police Department · filed 2019-07-08

Stated differently, this general rule is sufficiently specific to have put Defendants on notice in this case that they would violate A.N.’s right to equal protection under the law if they intentionally and without a rational basis differentiated between her and similarly situated juvenile arrestees in applying New Mexico’s laws against the disclosure of juvenile arrest and delinquency records.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a § 1983 claim for entering a home without a warrant or other justification when the prohibition was clearly established.

Clark v. Davis · filed 2019-07-08

With respect to Clark’s Fourth Amendment search claim, Davis is not entitled to qualified immunity because it is clearly established that an officer cannot enter a home without a warrant or other justification such as emergency or exigency, even if the landlord called the officer over a rent dispute.

A government official sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity from a First Amendment retaliation claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Harmon v. Dallas County, Texas · filed 2019-07-09

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

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

Guy v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr. · filed 2019-07-09

We need not resolve whether Humanism is a recognized religion for First Amendment purposes. Rather, our only task is to determine whether "clearly established" law places the question "beyond debate." Because it does not, we conclude Mr. Lampert and Ms. Tennant-Caine were entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Guy's claim for monetary damages.

Officers sued individually under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the dismissal stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that they violated clearly established rights.

Dabbs v. Lombardi · filed 2019-07-09

Defendant Corrections Officers have not shown they are entitled to qualified immunity on Count I on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Their motion to dismiss Count I is denied.

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

Corbitt v. Vickers · filed 2019-07-10

Because Vickers's actions did not violate any clearly established rights, we conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity and that the district court should have granted his motion to dismiss.

Individual public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the alleged right was clearly established at the time.

Castanon v. Cathey · filed 2019-07-11

But regardless of whether Plaintiffs’ allegations amount to liberty or property interests, the individual Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not shown that any of their alleged protectable interests were clearly established at the time of the events in question.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave them fair notice that their alleged disclosure of minor sexual abuse victims’ identities was unlawful.

Dillard v. City of Springdale, Arkansas · filed 2019-07-12

We hold that the right of minor victims of sexual abuse not to have their identities and the details of their abuse revealed to the public was clearly established.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when material factual disputes bear on the objective reasonableness of their conduct.

Grant v. Hogue · filed 2019-07-12

Accordingly, Sgt. Hogue and Sgt. Kerr are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Qualified immunity protects an official from § 1983 damages when existing precedent did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

Rios v. Jenkins · filed 2019-07-15

In sum, the court is convinced that Jenkins did not violate clearly established federal law by detaining Rios for an additional 48 hours pursuant to the ICE detainer and administrative warrant.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when existing law gave them no fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Graves v. Lioi · filed 2019-07-16

Lioi and Russell are entitled to qualified immunity for this additional reason as well.

A § 1983 plaintiff alleging retaliation for using an internal employment appeal must identify precedent clearly establishing liability for that conduct to overcome qualified immunity.

Burgett v. Wilber · filed 2019-07-17

Yet he cites no caselaw clearly establishing that the defendants can be liable under § 1983 for retaliating against Burgett after he invoked the city’s internal appeal process to review the termination decision. ... The failure to point to any such retaliation law prevents Burgett from overcoming qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful entry claim when no clearly established law prohibited their conduct.

Thompson v. City of Florence, Alabama · filed 2019-07-17

Based upon the foregoing precedent and authority, there exists no clearly established law prohibiting application of the hot pursuit doctrine to misdemeanants who flee into third-party residences. Therefore, Thompson does not sustain her burden, and Johnson and Redcross warrant qualified immunity on Thompson’s unlawful entry claim.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from a § 1983 suit when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Swearingen v. Judd · filed 2019-07-18

Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit under § 1983 if their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Under these circumstances, we cannot say that Judd’s use of deadly force, even if just over the line of reasonableness, violated a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity shields government officers from damages under § 1983 when the challenged conduct was not clearly established as unlawful at the time.

Brown v. Faucher · filed 2019-07-18

Because the doctrine of qualified immunity allows government officers to only be sued for damages under § 1983 for conduct that is “clearly established” as unlawful at the time it is challenged, see Mara v. Rilling, 921 F.3d 48, 68 (2d Cir. 2019), I conclude that qualified immunity squarely bars Brown’s Eighth Amendment claim as to his confinement in segregation.

In a Section 1983 false arrest claim, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law gave the officer no arguable probable cause to arrest.

Croland v. Camille · filed 2019-07-19

Viewing this record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it was clear -- such that objectively “every reasonable official would have understood” in 2014 -- that Plaintiff’s conduct did not rise to the level of a crime and, thus, no arguable probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff. See Wilkerson, 736 F.3d at 978. Given the assumed facts, we accept that summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not demanded at this stage in the proceedings.

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

Turner v. Al Thomas, Jr. · filed 2019-07-19

Accordingly, Turner has not alleged a violation of clearly established law, and Thomas and Flaherty are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable official would know that returning an inmate to a cell after his cellmate attacked him violates the Eighth Amendment.

Peters v. Raymond · filed 2019-07-19

The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Peters’s favor, Brannon is not entitled to qualified immunity because Peters’s right to be free from violence at the hands of other inmates was clearly established, and a reasonable official would have known that placing Peters back in the same cell after he was physically attacked by his cellmate would violate the Eighth Amendment.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim if no constitutional right was violated or the asserted right was not clearly established.

Koenigs L.L.C. v. City of Savannah, Tennessee · filed 2019-07-19

In this case, neither prong is met. ... Thus, Defendant Welch is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest or false imprisonment claim when disputed facts could show that the officer lacked arguable probable cause.

Hails v. Dennis · filed 2019-07-22

Here, the district court did not err in concluding that Dennis was not entitled to qualified immunity on Hails’ false arrest and false imprisonment claims. Even if we assume that Dennis was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had arguable probable cause to arrest Hails.

Defendants in a Section 1983 claim are entitled to qualified immunity when no reasonable jury could find that they violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Jacoby v. Joshua Keers, John Rowell · filed 2019-07-22

Given the direct evidence in the record contradicting Jacoby’s claim that excessive force was used against him, no reasonable jury could find that Keers and Rowell violated Jacoby’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights, so they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts bear on whether the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable.

Kennedy v. Mohave, County of · filed 2019-07-22

Therefore, for the purpose of resolving the Motion, the Court declines to grant the Defendants summary judgement on Count 1 on the basis of qualified immunity.

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

Keller v. Attala County · filed 2019-07-23

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Deputy Fleming qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim and REVERSE and RENDER judgment granting him qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Public officials sued for damages under Section 1983 in their individual capacities may invoke qualified immunity, which applies when the plaintiff fails to state a constitutional violation.

Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2019-07-23

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense against 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damage claims available to public officials sued in their individual capacities. ... As the court has determined Plaintiff has failed to state any claim, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Disputed facts about an officer’s use of force can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim.

Jeffries v. Ayoub · filed 2019-07-23

Although qualified immunity should be decided at the earliest possible phase of a case, disputed issues of fact may preclude determining the question of qualified immunity until trial. ... Thus, the Court cannot reach the question of qualified immunity in advance of trial. Summary judgment is denied as to Counts I, II, and III.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when material facts bearing on the defense remain disputed.

Burno-Whalen v. The State of Maryland · filed 2019-07-23

Qualified immunity, however, serves as an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims. ... Accordingly, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

Mertes v. City of Rogers · filed 2019-07-23

Without this showing, Mertes’s Fourteenth Amendment claim cannot survive a qualified immunity challenge.

An officer who did not help obtain a warrant may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for executing it unless the warrant is facially overbroad.

Estate of Kevin Brown v. Lambert · filed 2019-07-24

Officer Mekenas-Parga, however, is entitled to qualified immunity on the overbroad warrant claim. Because she did not assist in obtaining the warrant, she was entitled to rely on it unless it was “so facially overbroad as to preclude reasonable reliance.”

An officer facing a § 1983 false-arrest claim has qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest lawful under clearly established law.

Nazario v. Kruger · filed 2019-07-24

Accordingly, plaintiffs have the burden of showing that Castrejon’s arrest for eavesdropping was so egregious that no reasonable person could have failed to realize that it violated clearly established rights. Plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden.

An officer sued under § 1983 for excessive force has qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that the specific use of force was unlawful.

Russell v. Richardson · filed 2019-07-25

Richardson is therefore entitled to qualified immunity at prong two.

An official sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity if the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook · filed 2019-07-25

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

An individual defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a jury could find a violation of a clearly established right.

PRATT v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER · filed 2019-07-25

Accordingly, Defendant Chacinksi is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 liability when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Cournoyer v. Fischer · filed 2019-07-29

Qualified immunity protects the officers from Cournoyer’s § 1983 claim so long as they didn’t violate his “clearly established” constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against an officer whose conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Varnadore v. Merritt · filed 2019-07-30

Because he did not violate Foskey’s Fourth Amendment rights, Merritt is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when disputed facts could show they based an arrest on a coerced or fabricated confession.

Gilliam v. Sealey · filed 2019-07-30

Therefore, the district court did not err by concluding that Appellees’ right not to be arrested without probable cause based on a coerced and fabricated confession was clearly established in 1983, and the district court was correct to deny summary judgment to Appellants on the basis of qualified immunity in light of the numerous material disputes of fact.

A § 1983 qualified immunity defense does not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage when unresolved facts prevent the court from deciding whether the plaintiff’s rights were clearly established.

Unitt v. Spencer · filed 2019-07-30

Assuming, without deciding, that Sholudko can invoke qualified immunity even though she was the employee of a government contractor, the court denies her motion to dismiss with regard to this defense. Unitt’s 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. At this point, the issue of qualified immunity turns on unresolved questions of fact.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for school officials who were not personally involved in the alleged equal protection violation, but not for a superintendent whose alleged discriminatory conduct was not objectively reasonable.

Barrer-Cohen v. Greenburgh Central School District · filed 2019-07-30

However, regarding Plaintiff’s §1983 claim based on equal protection, which this Court did find to be plausibly pleaded, the individual Board members and Principal Simone are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Superintendent Chase, however, is not entitled to qualified immunity based on Plaintiff’s allegations.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a Section 1983 false arrest claim when material fact disputes prevent a finding of arguable probable cause.

Browne v. Ortiz · filed 2019-07-31

Consequently, in light of these genuine disputes of material fact after de novo review, the Court affirms Judge Scanlon’s recommendation that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage and that summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity must, at this point, be denied.

In a § 1983 suit, factual disputes bearing on arguable probable cause can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Ortiz · filed 2019-07-31

Consequently, in light of these genuine disputes of material fact after de novo review, the Court affirms Judge Scanlon’s recommendation that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage and that summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity must, at this point, be denied.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law would not have warned similarly situated officials that their conduct violated a detainee’s right to medical care.

Johnson v. Laramie County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2019-08-01

The Court concludes the clearly established law in December 2015 would not have put reasonable officials similarly situated to Defendants on notice that their conduct would violate Hunter’s right to medical care.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity when no clearly established law would have told officials that their conduct was unlawful.

Fisher v. Gordon · filed 2019-08-01

Because no case clearly established that relying on the Fishers’ actions (and inaction) as evidence of consent was unlawful, the OCDJFS Employees are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law requires prison staff to accommodate an inmate’s self-reported mental health condition without medical confirmation or a treatment plan.

Leiser v. Kloth · filed 2019-08-01

Kloth is entitled to summary judgment because Leiser did not establish that he had a clearly established constitutional right to an accommodation of a self-reported mental diagno- sis without confirmation from medical staff or existence of a treatment plan.

Qualified immunity bars damages in a § 1983 suit when the plaintiffs cannot show that the officers violated clearly established law.

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

Because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 damages unless their conduct violates clearly established rights.

Eberhardinger v. City of York · filed 2019-08-05

Qualified immunity shields police officers from claims for money damages brought pursuant to § 1983 “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Bland v. City of Newark, 900 F.3d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308). ... Accordingly, we will not disturb the District Court’s determination that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Eberhardinger, a reasonable jury could find that Smith’s use of deadly force violated clearly established law, and that summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity was therefore properly denied.

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

Montgomery v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-08-05

Hence, Officers Wise and Nasr are entitled to qualified immunity, and defendants’ motion to dismiss Count IV will be granted.

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim if the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Pearson v. Colorado Department of Transportation · filed 2019-08-05

Because Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that the law was clearly established, even if the underlying conduct were, arguendo, a constitutional violation, Defendant Adame is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against an officer when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Gregor v. Johnsen · filed 2019-08-05

The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Carlson correctly and comprehensively addressed the pending motion for summary judgment in his Report and Recommendation and correctly concluded that Defendant Johnsen is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim and that the City is entitled to summary judgment in regard to Plaintiff’s Monell claim.

A Section 1983 plaintiff opposing summary judgment on qualified immunity must identify evidence creating a material factual dispute about whether the defendant violated clearly established law.

Maldonado v. Rodriguez · filed 2019-08-06

When the defense of qualified immunity is raised, a plaintiff must point to evidence creating material fact disputes as to whether a defendant has violated clearly established law.

A teacher is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim alleging an unprovoked, serious use of force against a student when established law gave fair warning that the conduct was unlawful.

Vasquez v. Richland School District · filed 2019-08-06

For the reasons stated above, Defendant Martinez’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the Negligence cause of action against him, DENIED as to the application of qualified immunity to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action, and DENIED as to subject matter jurisdiction.

In a § 1983 action, a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Harris v. Topeka, City of · filed 2019-08-06

In short, the defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity creates a presumption that the plaintiff must overcome by showing that, “(1) the officers’ alleged conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) it was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that ‘every reasonable official would understood that such conduct constituted a violation of that right.” Perea v. Baca, 817 F.3d 1198, 1202 (10th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against an officer who keeps an arrestee in painfully tight handcuffs despite requests to loosen them when established law gave the officer notice that the conduct was unlawful.

Buckhalter v. City of Vacaville · filed 2019-08-07

Given the clearly established law regarding excessively tight handcuffing, a reasonable officer in Torres’s position would have known that to place and keep plaintiff in handcuffs so tight they caused him unnecessary pain, despite plaintiff’s requests to loosen the handcuffs, violated plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ... Based on these facts, and drawing all inferences in favor of plaintiff as the non-moving party, the court concludes Torres is not entitled to qualified immunity. The court DENIES summary judgment as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Torres.

In a § 1983 false arrest or malicious prosecution claim, officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they had at least arguable probable cause to arrest and initiate prosecution.

Butler v. Sampognaro · filed 2019-08-07

In the context of lawsuits involving a claim of false arrest or malicious prosecution, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if she had at least arguable probable cause to have made the arrest and to have initiated a prosecution. ... Because there was at least arguable probable cause, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Elofson v. Bivens · filed 2019-08-08

The district court properly determined that Mudd was entitled to qualified immunity because Elofson failed to allege facts showing that Mudd violated his clearly established constitutional rights.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim for administratively imposed post-release supervision after a prison sentence expires when they fail to take reasonable steps to comply with a clearly established right.

Reyes v. Fischer · filed 2019-08-09

Because the right to be free from administratively imposed PRS was clearly established by Earley I and its progeny, and because the defendants did not take reasonable steps to comply with Earley I, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the week between the end of Reyes's determinate sentences on November 27, 2008, and the beginning of her PRS term that was pronounced by a judge on December 5, 2008.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when no reasonable jury could find that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

THE ESTATE OF FREDDY BAEZ JR. v.CAMDEN COUNTY · filed 2019-08-09

For the reasons that follow, Officers Painchaud and Kerper are entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable jury could find that they violated a clearly established Constitutional right. Thus, they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material factual disputes also determine the merits.

Edwards v. DeBord · filed 2019-08-12

The material disputes that preclude summary judgment on the merits are also fatal to the defendant’s argument for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim may be denied only if the officer violated clearly established law in light of the information available to him at the time.

Scotia v. Kan. City Bd. of Police Comm'rs · filed 2019-08-12

It must then evaluate whether Thompson, in light of all of the information available to him at the moment, violated clearly established law when he shot Stokes. See Kisela, 138 S. Ct. at 1152–53; Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003, 2007 (2017) (per curiam). Only if the answer is “yes” may the court once again deny qualified immunity.

Municipal defendants cannot assert qualified immunity against claims under § 1983.

Harper v. County of Delaware · filed 2019-08-12

Our conclusion that the right Harper claims was not clearly established does not resolve his claims against the municipal defendants, which cannot assert a qualified immunity defense to claims under § 1983.

A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim must show that the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Cappelli v. Hoover · filed 2019-08-12

Without a showing of “Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent [that] would make it clear to every reasonable officer that such conduct is prohibited,” see Perea v. Baca, 817 F.3d 1198, 1204 (10th Cir. 2016), plaintiffs cannot satisfy the “heavy . . . burden” of overcoming qualified immunity.

State officials sued for damages in their personal capacity under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity, but an officer is not entitled to it when the right he violated was clearly established.

Corona v. City of Clovis · filed 2019-08-12

Under § 1983, state officials sued in their personal capacity for damages may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. ... Officer Aguilar is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an official from Section 1983 damages when the unlawfulness of the official’s specific conduct was not clearly established.

Byam v. Cain · filed 2019-08-12

Officer Barba is therefore entitled to qualified immunity from Byam’s third claim.

Section 1983 requires an individualized qualified immunity assessment for each officer, even when officers participated in the same interrogation.

Koh v. Sung Kim · filed 2019-08-13

While the district court’s individual assessment of Kim’s entitlement to qualified immunity was brief, given that Kim participated in the same, singular factual scenario as Graf, i.e., Mr. Koh’s interrogation, the district court satisfied the individualized determination required when it concluded that Kim was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an official from a § 1983 suit unless the official violated a clearly established right.

Kelsay v. Matt Ernst · filed 2019-08-13

Qualified immunity shields a government official from suit under § 1983 if his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... The constitutionality of Ernst’s takedown was not beyond debate, and he is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence could show they used force against someone who was not actively resisting.

Konrad v. Kolb · filed 2019-08-13

Because using force against someone who is not actively resisting is in violation of clearly established law, the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Konrad’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity remains available as a defense to a § 1983 claim despite a separation-of-powers challenge.

Renfroe v. Parker · filed 2019-08-13

The final issue is whether the Court ignored Renfroe’s argument that qualified immunity violates separation of powers. ... But this Court must follow binding precedent, and the Supreme Court continues to apply qualified immunity. ... The Court did not ignore her argument, and the holding remains correct.

A government official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim if the violated right was clearly established and a reasonable official would have known of it.

Smith v. Charleston County · filed 2019-08-13

If the constitutional right of a § 1983 plaintiff was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that an objectively reasonable official in the defendant’s position would have known of the right, that official is not entitled to immunity.

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

Dollar Loan Center of SD v. Afdahl · filed 2019-08-14

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the complaint, we find DLC has failed to show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established. Afdahl is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the officer’s conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Murphy v. Engelhart · filed 2019-08-14

In these circumstances, accepting the facts of the takedown as Murphy describes them, we cannot conclude that Engelhart violated a “clearly established” constitutional right when he threw or shoved Murphy to the ground.

Qualified immunity is available to individual government officials sued for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983.

Campbell v. Raines · filed 2019-08-19

The defense of qualified immunity is available to 1) individual governmental officials, but not governmental entities; 2) regarding claims for monetary damages, but not claims for injunctive or declaratory relief; and 3) regarding claims against individual governmental officials in their individual capacities, not their official capacities.

Section 1983 damages claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity unless clearly established law gave them notice that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Campbell v. Kallas · filed 2019-08-19

Qualified immunity shields a public official from suit for damages unless caselaw clearly puts him on notice that his action is unconstitutional.

An officer has qualified immunity from Section 1983 false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when arguable probable cause exists.

Miller v. Zink · filed 2019-08-20

These facts amount to arguable probable cause: a law enforcement officer of reasonable competence could find that there was probable cause. Because arguable probable cause existed, Trooper Zink is entitled to qualified immunity on both the federal and state law claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit must await trial when competing factual accounts prevent the court from determining whether the defense applies before trial.

Cole v. Hunter · filed 2019-08-20

When those processes do not yield pretrial resolution, as with competing factual narratives, the full reach of qualified immunity gives way to a trial, the first point at which its application is determinable.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint fails to allege a constitutional violation.

Goss v. Cathey · filed 2019-08-20

Accordingly, Defendant Cathey is entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff’s deprivation of property procedural due process claim is dismissed as to all Defendants.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law would have alerted a reasonable officer that his conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Vanderhoef v. Dixon · filed 2019-08-21

Given our deference to the jury’s role in determining the facts and applying them to the law, Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151, and our general view of the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party in qualified-immunity cases, Champion, 380 F.3d 893, 900, we conclude that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to overcome defendant’s qualified-immunity defense.

Qualified immunity does not shield a government official from a Section 1983 claim when the evidence could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Judd v. City of Baxter, Tenn. · filed 2019-08-21

Because Judd prevails on both steps of the qualified immunity analysis, Haney is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an officer who, on the plaintiff’s account, approved force against a helpless, nonresisting prisoner.

Givens Bey v. Murray · filed 2019-08-21

The Court, therefore, finds that Defendant Hamilton is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at this stage when the court cannot conclude that no constitutional violation occurred.

McClary v. Kalinski · filed 2019-08-21

For the reasons set forth above, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that no constitutional violation occurred. Accordingly, Dr. Kalinski’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is also denied.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts determine whether an officer violated a clearly established right.

Dickey v. Baker (TWP2) · filed 2019-08-21

Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Officer Baker is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a constitutional right.

Huebner v. Bradshaw · filed 2019-08-22

Because Huebner hasn’t shown a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, McDonough is entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim based on a false warrant affidavit must make a substantial showing that the officer deliberately or recklessly misstated material information to overcome qualified immunity.

LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich. · filed 2019-08-22

“To overcome an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity,” a § 1983 plaintiff must make “a substantial showing that the defendant stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth.” Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2003). In addition, the plaintiff must then show “that the allegedly false or omitted information was material to the finding of probable cause.” Id.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged facts show no violation of clearly established rights.

Estate of Jonathan Manolios v. Macomb Cty. · filed 2019-08-22

In sum, the facts alleged do not show violations of the Manolioses’ clearly established due process, equal protection, or privacy rights. As such, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal.

Section 1983 claims against officials sued in their official capacities may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

Smith v. Pines · filed 2019-08-22

For all the above reasons, the Court finds that, to the extent Defendants are sued in their official capacities, Plaintiff’s claims must be, and are, alternatively dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Government officials are immune from damages under Section 1983 when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Christopher, Adam v. Schwochert, Jim · filed 2019-08-23

As discussed above, I conclude that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s First Amendment damages claims. Plaintiff’s claims for damages will be dismissed.

An official sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Yates v. Davis · filed 2019-08-23

In short, plaintiffs pleaded a violation of their right to marry: a right the Supreme Court clearly established in Obergefell. The district court therefore correctly denied qualified immunity to Davis.

An official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity if the official did not violate a constitutional right or acted objectively reasonably in light of clearly established law.

Cannady v. Clay County Mississippi · filed 2019-08-23

As we agree with the district court that Sheriff Scott did not prevent Cannady’s transport to the court on January 23, 2013 and did not violate Cannady’s right to due process, we also agree that Sheriff Scott’s conduct was not objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Sheriff Scott is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity for wrongful pretrial detention when officers lacked arguable probable cause, regardless of how the claim was labeled.

HURT v. VANTLIN · filed 2019-08-23

The Court rejects the argument that the same conduct at issue in their former malicious prosecution claim – which the Seventh Circuit found was not subject to immunity – is magically immune because the claim is now labeled a Fourth Amendment claim. The law proscribing detention in the absence of probable cause, and the inapplicability of qualified immunity for detention in the absence of arguable probable cause, however the claim is labeled, has been settled for years.

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

Brady v. Portland State University · filed 2019-08-23

In brief, even assuming Plaintiff has a constitutionally protected property interest in his education program, that interest was not clearly established at the time Plaintiff was dismissed from the Program. As no precedential or decisional law has placed the constitutional question beyond debate, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiffs claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ploski v. City Of Chicago · filed 2019-08-26

Because there is no clearly established law supporting the federal theory of liability, Medenica is entitled to qualified immunity on Count I.

In a § 1983 claim, courts may consider Sixth Circuit precedent when deciding whether a right was clearly established for qualified immunity.

Cook v. Woodard · filed 2019-08-26

However, Defendant is incorrect that courts are limited to considering Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

Individual defendants sued under Section 1983 may raise qualified immunity, which bars damages when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Jorgensen v. Oklahoma Juvenile Affairs Office · filed 2019-08-26

Individual defendants named in a section 1983 action, such as the defendants in the case at bar, may raise a defense of qualified immunity. ... The court therefore concludes that the claim is subject to dismissal based upon qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when clearly established law would have made the force unlawful in the circumstances.

Hodge v. Blount Cty., Tenn. · filed 2019-08-27

Vaughn is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Government employees are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Matthews v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors · filed 2019-08-27

The employee defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

Section 1983 claims against an officer may proceed when the pleaded facts defeat qualified immunity.

Holmes v. Bivins · filed 2019-08-27

These allegations state constitutional violations that defeat Defendant Bivins’s qualified immunity. Plaintiff is thus entitled to default judgment against Defendant Bivins on his § 1983 claims.

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

Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Hall · filed 2019-08-27

Even if a four-month partial denial of outdoor exercise were an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as the underlying constitutional right was not clearly established.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when reasonable officers could disagree about whether their conduct was lawful in the circumstances.

Smalls v. County of Suffolk · filed 2019-08-27

Based upon the record, and because the reasonable belief standard is less stringent than the probable cause one, the Court finds that officers of reasonable competence, faced with the same facts and circumstances as known to the Investigators on May 18, 2013 and June 4, 2013, respectively, could have disagreed whether, on each occasion, there was a sufficient basis to reasonably believe that the Daughter and Child were present at the Warrant Address. That is sufficient to entitle the Investigators to qualified immunity from the Plaintiffs’ claims of constitutional violations arising out of the May and June Attempts.

Officers sued under § 1983 for excessive force must show that their conduct did not violate a clearly established right to obtain qualified immunity.

Childress v. North Charleston South Carolina, City of · filed 2019-08-27

Instead, defendants must show that Demalo’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right of which a reasonable officer would have known. Defendants do not make this argument, nor do they cite to any law that supports their argument. As such, the court denies summary judgment as to Demalo and Bennett on the excessive force claim.

Section 1983 officers are not entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable fact finder could find that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ruiz v. Harmon · filed 2019-08-28

The Court concludes that a reasonable fact finder could find that the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Ruiz, establish a violation of his constitutional right and that Corporal Harmon and Sergeant Fry are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Ruiz’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an individual defendant in a § 1983 action when clearly established law gave fair warning that the conduct was unconstitutional.

Flores v. Victory Preparatory Academy · filed 2019-08-28

These standards were clearly established and sufficiently specific to give Defendant Jajdelski fair warning that his conduct was constitutionally prohibited. Therefore, he is not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Qualified immunity shields a probation officer from Section 1983 liability when an ambiguous registration law and the absence of interpretive authority leave the unlawfulness of an arrest unclear.

Marshall v. Fries · filed 2019-08-28

Given the ambiguity in the Act and the lack of any interpretive decision therefore, reasonable minds could differ as to the interpretation of the registration requirement, and Lojko is shielded by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an official when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established right.

Jacobsen v. Weber · filed 2019-08-28

Jacobsen has not met his burden of establishing that Klinefelter violated a right that was clearly established. ... Qualified immunity thus bars Jacobsen’s suit against Klinefelter for any alleged constitutional violation (Count I).

Qualified immunity does not shield § 1983 defendants merely because they followed a longstanding policy; they must show that their belief in its constitutionality was objectively reasonable.

Burrell v. Zurek · filed 2019-08-28

And the Second Circuit has held a defendant’s actions can be objectively unreasonable even if that defendant was following a policy. ... Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

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

Bonilla-Chirinos v. Maggiano · filed 2019-08-29

Because the right was not clearly established at the time of the officers’ conduct, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the familial association claim to the extent it is based on the denial of the phone call from the place of arrest.

A defendant seeking qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim must first show that the challenged conduct was within the scope of the defendant’s discretionary authority.

Ellison v. Hobbs · filed 2019-08-29

A defendant claiming qualified immunity “must first prove that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002).

An official is entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim when no obvious violation or materially similar precedent gave fair warning that the conduct was unlawful.

Fuqua v. Turner · filed 2019-08-29

In sum, because this is not an obvious clarity case and plaintiff has not pointed to a materially similar case giving Collier fair warning that his actions violated federal law, the Court finds that Collier is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the federal claims.

An officer with at least arguable probable cause to bring charges is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Avitable v. Raywood · filed 2019-08-29

I find that the undisputed facts, even when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, show that the plaintiffs’ arrests were supported by probable cause – or at the very least “arguable probable cause” sufficient to afford the defendant qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law.

Cambre v. Smith · filed 2019-08-29

Taking the facts as true as alleged by Plaintiff, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Cambre’s § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive force claim must be assessed using the jury’s factual findings, rather than conflicting findings from internal or external police reviews.

Warr v. Liberatore · filed 2019-08-29

However, it is the jury’s factual conclusions regarding the disputed circumstances facing the officers – not those drawn by the internal and external reviewers – that must control the qualified immunity analysis, and Liberatore’s argument does not appear to acknowledge the discrepancies between the jury’s findings and the findings – whether explicit, implicit, or unstated – of the internal and external police reviewers.

Police officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for violating rights that were clearly established when they acted.

Wheatt v. City of East Cleveland · filed 2019-08-29

Because the jury found that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights applying legal standards established in 1977, the Court finds that the rights were clearly established at the time of the 1995 suggestive identification. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Qualified immunity shields an official from monetary damages on a § 1983 claim but does not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.

Endres v. Ne. Ohio Med. Univ. · filed 2019-08-30

Thus, our ruling shields Emerick from monetary damages. But the qualified immunity doctrine does not preclude Endres from continuing to pursue the injunctive and declaratory relief that he has also requested in his § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials are barred by qualified immunity when the alleged unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established.

Williams 124345 v. Ryan · filed 2019-08-30

Given the lack of case law holding that a policy like DO 914.07 was unconstitutional, or that the officers’ use of discretion in applying the policy was unconstitutional, the Court concludes that Defendants’ are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s as-applied claim for damages.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes a rights violation and the right was clearly established when they acted.

Rudley v. Little Rock Police Dep't · filed 2019-09-03

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Rudley, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff’s version of events would show that no reasonable officer could have believed the force was lawful.

Odom v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-09-03

Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the court rejects Hudson’s contention that qualified immunity shields him from Urquhart’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, and the motion for summary judgment as to Count II will be denied.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when their mistaken arrest was supported by arguable probable cause and did not violate clearly established law.

Rogers v. City of College Park, Georgia · filed 2019-09-03

The Court thus holds Defendants Ferguson and Silvers are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity on the § 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

Prison officials may receive qualified immunity from § 1983 claims at summary judgment.

Mitchell v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-03

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, that the Natural Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that summary judgment is appropriate with respect to Plaintiff’s property claim to extent he asserts this claim under § 1983.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unreasonable-seizure claim when their detention is objectively reasonable.

Dale Phillips, II v. Blair · filed 2019-09-03

Finding the officers’ actions objectively reasonable, we reverse the district court on this issue and grant the officers qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 claim for excessively tight handcuffing when bruising creates a factual dispute about injury and the right was clearly established.

McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan · filed 2019-09-04

Thus, under Morrison, bruising is enough. That means McGrew has created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the officers violated her right to be free from excessively tight handcuffing that causes physical injury. Further, because we decided Morrison before the events in this case, McGrew’s right was clearly established at the time defendants acted. Thus, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on this variant of McGrew’s excessive-force claim.

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

Whittaker v. Munoz · filed 2019-09-04

Since there was no consensus view at the time of the actions in this case, even if there was a First Amendment violation for retaliatory arrest notwithstanding the fact Officer Munoz had probable cause to arrest Mr. Whittaker, Officer Munoz is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Jessop v. City of Fresno · filed 2019-09-04

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.

A prison disciplinary appeal officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim based on affirming an allegedly defective hearing when it is not clearly established that the affirmance violates an inmate’s rights.

Brown v. Venettozi · filed 2019-09-04

Consistent with Colon, the Court concludes that Venettozzi is entitled to qualified immunity here because this area of law is “unsettled,” and it is not clear that “every reasonable official” would have known that affirming the findings of an allegedly procedurally defective hearing violates an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officers on a failure-to-protect claim when the prolonged attack cannot be treated as a surprise.

Luckey v. Jonas · filed 2019-09-04

However, as discussed above, due to the prolonged nature of this attack, it cannot properly be deemed a surprise attack. Defendants, therefore, are not entitled to qualified immunity on that ground.

Qualified immunity supports dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage only when it is established on the face of the complaint.

KANSHAW v. DESANTIS · filed 2019-09-05

However, because “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint[,]” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 291, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfies the second prong in the qualified immunity analysis such that her claims survive a motion to dismiss.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity if the alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Kader v. Dooley · filed 2019-09-05

The court may address the elements in any order and if either of the elements are not met, then the official is entitled to qualified immunity. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). ... Thus, because there has been no constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to the heat/lack of ventilation claims of Kader’s complaint.

Section 1983 claims are subject to qualified immunity when the defendant did not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Linton v. Godinez · filed 2019-09-06

Furthermore, because Crain did not violate Linton’s clearly established constitutional rights, Judge Sison also recommends that the undersigned find she is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 63), and GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Angela Crain (Doc. 45).

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim is assessed using the information the officer actually possessed at the critical time.

Thevenin v. City of Troy · filed 2019-09-06

Rather, the determination whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position would have known that his conduct would violate the right at issue must be made on the basis of information actually possessed by the officer at the critical time.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clear to every reasonable officer in the same circumstances.

BROWN v. NEWELL · filed 2019-09-06

Assuming arguendo that the Complaint states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment violation, the Court nevertheless concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Given the presence of numerous officers in the examining room, the close proximity of at least two officers to Muniz as he interacted with Plaintiff, and the fact that Muniz was shackled at all times, the Court cannot say that the alleged unlawfulness of the Defendants’ conduct would have been evident to “every reasonable officer” facing the same situation.

An officer facing a § 1983 claim cannot obtain good faith immunity when the evidence could show deliberate indifference to an inmate’s imminent risk of suicide.

Williams v. Stacy · filed 2019-09-09

And since it is well established that deliberate indifference to an imminent threat of suicide constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, good faith immunity does not apply.

Section 1983 permits an equal protection claim against a mayor who allegedly denied a promotion solely because of race; qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal when that prohibition was clearly established.

Runkel v. City of Springfield · filed 2019-09-09

Any reasonable mayor in Langfelder’s position would have understood that refusing to appoint a person to serve as the City’s purchasing agent solely because of that person’s race would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff alleges that Langfelder chose Wilkin for the purchasing agent position because Wilkin is black and Plaintiff is white. Therefore, Langfelder is not entitled to qualified immunity on Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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

Andersen v. Village of Glenview · filed 2019-09-09

Andersen, however, has made no attempt to do so; she does not discuss this requirement, much less identify any precedent establishing that it was clearly established at the time that Popkov's conduct (however defined) violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Popkov is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows an unreasonable violation of clearly established rights.

Bradley v. Williams · filed 2019-09-09

Taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the video and testimonial evidence of the officers’ rough handling of Bradley show an unreasonable violation of his clearly established rights.

Defendants sued for damages under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a clearly established right.

Moss v. Harwood · filed 2019-09-09

Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence that Defendants violated his clearly established rights, and therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability when the facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Yankton v. Cody · filed 2019-09-09

The defendant officers, on the other hand, have submitted unrefuted evidence that shows they are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when there is at least arguable probable cause to pursue the prosecution.

DaCosta v. Tranchina · filed 2019-09-10

We therefore conclude that Tranchina had at least arguable probable cause to pursue the prosecution and was entitled to qualified immunity, despite these later events.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates no constitutional right and, even assuming a violation, no court has established that comparable conduct is unconstitutional.

Castillo v. Renteria · filed 2019-09-10

As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Renteria and Romero are entitled to qualified immunity because there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Moreover, even if one were to assume an Eighth Amendment violation, Renteria (and therefore Romero) are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because no court has held that the minimal touching Plaintiff experienced here was sufficiently objectively serious to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment claim.

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Quintero v. Aranan · filed 2019-09-10

Fourth, and also because Plaintiff has no liberty interest in parole, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity here because Plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when the complaint does not allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Hamner v. Burls · filed 2019-09-11

Where Hamner’s only remaining claim is for damages, we conclude that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Mudge v. Zugalla, Harder · filed 2019-09-12

But for the reasons set forth above, their behavior did not give rise to a cause of action under section 1983 that could survive the defendantsʹ qualified immunity defense.

A Section 1983 plaintiff opposing qualified immunity at summary judgment must show that the right at issue was clearly established.

Underwood v. City of Bessemer, The · filed 2019-09-12

Having failed to meet his burden to show a clearly established right at summary judgment, Underwood cannot now claim that the undersigned erred by granting qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officials are barred by qualified immunity when no reasonable juror could find that they violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Dunahue v. Watson · filed 2019-09-12

After reviewing the record evidence, the Court agrees with Judge Ray that no reasonable juror could conclude that defendants violated Mr. Dunahue’s constitutional rights. Therefore, Mr. Dunahue’s claims against defendants are barred by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity applies to individual-capacity claims for monetary damages, but does not bar claims for declaratory or injunctive relief under Section 1983.

Brockman v. Bimestefer · filed 2019-09-12

Indeed, qualified immunity is applicable only to individual capacity claims for monetary damages; it is not a defense against claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

A defendant asserting qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim bears the burden of proving that the defense applies.

Diggs v. The City of New York · filed 2019-09-12

In particular, the Court notes that Defendants utterly failed to prove that qualified immunity and the statute of limitations apply, even though they are both affirmative defenses for which Defendants bear the burden of proof.

A defendant sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation or a violation of clearly established law.

Cleveland v. Sid Gautreaux, III · filed 2019-09-13

To negate qualified immunity, the plaintiff must make two showings. First, the plaintiff must show the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. Second, the plaintiff must show the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Ibid. ... Nurse Bell is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not necessarily require dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleadings stage.

Maroney v. Fiorentini · filed 2019-09-13

For the reasons stated in its earlier memorandum, the court also finds that dismissal based on qualified immunity is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 1983 claims against defendants in their individual capacities may proceed when the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Daywitt v. Moser · filed 2019-09-13

Because Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied in this respect.

Officers performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity from individual-capacity § 1983 claims unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Turner v. Huntsville Police Department · filed 2019-09-16

Therefore, the record supports the Defendants’ contention that they were engaging in a discretionary function during their arrest of Turner and search of his vehicle. Thus, the burden shifts to Turner to show “that the facts alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right and that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of [the] conduct.” Perez v. Suszczynski, 809 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 2016). Turner has failed to make this showing.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officials in their positions would not have known their conduct violated clearly established law.

Watford v. Ellis · filed 2019-09-16

Defendants are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Smart v. Queens Anne County · filed 2019-09-16

Here, however, regardless of whether Smart could establish that the QACDC ban on photographs violates the First Amendment, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against an official who did not violate a clearly established federal right.

Riley v. Ewing · filed 2019-09-17

Because Ewing did not violate a clearly established federal right, qualified immunity bars this claim.