42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity does not shield a defendant from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Curtis v. Colorado Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-17

Accordingly, Nurse Lloyd is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A public employee is entitled to qualified immunity from a §1983 claim unless clearly established law made the constitutional violation apparent at the time of the conduct.

Weiland v. Loomis · filed 2019-09-18

Because “clearly established” law does not support the §1983 claim against Loomis, we need not decide whether we agree with these decisions.

Qualified immunity can protect an official from a § 1983 claim when the official’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

Walker v. Beaumont Indep School Dist · filed 2019-09-18

The district court additionally found Kingsley entitled to qualified immunity based on ... objective reasonableness, i.e., Kingsley’s awareness of Walker’s licensing investigation by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation based on allegations of falsified work history, as well as being subject to criminal investigation and prosecution, and then convicted of tax fraud. Based on these facts, Walker’s challenge to the district court’s qualified immunity ruling on this issue is unwarranted.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim at the pleading stage when the alleged disciplinary action violates clearly established law.

Ryan v. Putnam · filed 2019-09-18

We find the allegations here sufficiently similar to Ulrich to satisfy the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis at this early stage. ... Accordingly, qualified immunity is not warranted at this stage.

Section 1983 claims against police officers are subject to qualified immunity when the officers have not violated clearly established law.

Romero v. Mooney · filed 2019-09-18

Consequently, we affirm the district court’s determination that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Easter v. Cramer · filed 2019-09-19

In the factual context of this case, we conclude that the right asserted by Appellee was not clearly established.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows a violation of clearly established law.

McKibben v. Knuth · filed 2019-09-19

The district court did not err in denying Knuth qualified immunity.

Prison officials may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave them notice that denying access to medical care was unlawful and material facts remain disputed.

Hanson v. Blaine County · filed 2019-09-19

This longstanding case law was more than sufficient to put Defendants Shubert and Gonzalez on notice that it would be unlawful to deny Mr. Hanson access to medical care—here, his prescribed eye medication—and that they would be subject to liability under § 1983 for their failure to do so.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Foley v. Rampley · filed 2019-09-19

Based on the record, a jury could not reasonably find for Mr. Foley, and Officer Rampley is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment because Mr. Foley has not proven the first and second elements required to maintain his claim.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 liability when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Dobbs v. Townsend · filed 2019-09-19

Accordingly, this Court holds that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, factual disputes and insufficient evidence about officials’ objective reasonableness can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Holloway v. Fisher · filed 2019-09-19

Accordingly, because there is a genuine issue of material fact on this issue, and a lack of evidence regarding the objective reasonableness of the actions of Defendants King and Ladner, summary judgment as to King and Ladner is denied.

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

Kindler v. City Of New York · filed 2019-09-19

Because the case law provides a basis for reasonable officers to disagree as to whether an inmate’s detention past his conditional release date is constitutionally permissible, and in the absence of any binding Second Circuit authority on the question, it cannot be said that Plaintiff’s detention past his conditional release date constituted a violation of his clearly established Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment rights. State Defendants are, accordingly, entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Hicks v. Pixley · filed 2019-09-20

Under the First Amendment, however, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or other rights that a reasonable officer would have known.” Hupp v Cook, 931 F.3d 307, 317 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the Fourth Circuit and the district courts within it have upheld similar grooming policies under the First Amendment, it cannot be said that a reasonable officer would have been on notice that the ban on partial beards clearly violated the free exercise clause.

A defendant in a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation suit is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Buddenberg v. Weisdack · filed 2019-09-20

Budzik is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity at this phase of the litigation.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when no reasonable officer would believe she had probable cause to arrest someone for trespass after ordering that person off property she lacked authority to exclude them from.

Adelman v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit · filed 2019-09-20

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Adelman, no reasonable officer under these circumstances would conclude that she had authority to eject a person complying with DART policies from public property—and then arrest that person for criminal trespass when he failed to depart. We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

A prison officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 medical-needs claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial health risk.

Gregory v. Baucum · filed 2019-09-20

However, Gregory fails to demonstrate that Sexton was aware that his action of taking Sexton’s broken dentures and throwing them away exposed Gregory to a substantial health risk or that Sexton consciously disregarded that risk. ... Thus, we conclude that Sexton was entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment.

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

Al-Baaj v. Bennett · filed 2019-09-20

After a defendant asserts qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must: (1) show facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) establish that, at the time of the conduct at issue, it was clearly established under existing law that the defendant’s conduct breached the constitutional right. ... The Court need not address the clearly-established prong, particularly because Koch clearly establishes Officer Bennett’s conduct was reasonable as stated.

Section 1983 defendants may assert qualified immunity, but factual disputes about whether they violated a constitutional right can preclude summary judgment on that defense.

Bennett v. Keel · filed 2019-09-20

Because there are genuine issues of fact as to whether a constitutional right has been violated, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion on the grounds of a qualified immunity defense.

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

Ross v. Jacks · filed 2019-09-23

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for damages under Section 1983 to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... For all of the reasons stated Jackson’s screening order, Jackson I, 2018 WL 2208360, at *4, and order on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Jackson II, 2019 WL 4415719, at *2–3, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s identical Sixth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law did not put them on notice that their particular conduct was unlawful.

Sightler v. Nisleit · filed 2019-09-23

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Sightler, did not violate clearly established law.

An officer sued under § 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when material factual disputes prevent the court from determining whether the officer violated a clearly established right.

Shay v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2019-09-23

The Court accordingly finds that there are genuine disputes of material facts as to whether Detective Derry’s conduct violated Shay’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, which preclude summary judgment on the first step of the qualified immunity test.

Officers are not automatically entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when they rely on social workers to remove children; the reasonableness of their conduct depends on the circumstances.

Kueck v. Contra Costa County · filed 2019-09-23

Given the limited allegations about the officers’ conduct and knowledge at the time they removed the children from their home, dismissal of the second claim on the basis of qualified immunity is denied.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from § 1983 damages when a reasonable officer could believe the challenged conduct was lawful.

Kropp v. Scott · filed 2019-09-23

C/O Scott thus is entitled to qualified immunity against the Eighth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage unless the defense is established on the face of the complaint.

T.S.H. v. Northwest Missouri State University · filed 2019-09-23

Based on the face of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds qualified immunity has not been established.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim over a suspicionless strip search following a felony drug arrest when the right was not clearly established at the time.

Wheeler v. Artola · filed 2019-09-23

The Court finds that Defendants Artola, McHugh, and Thoelen are entitled to qualified immunity on Wheeler's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unlawful strip search.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts determine whether an officer’s detention and arrest were reasonable.

Blakemore v. Roberson (PLR3) · filed 2019-09-23

For the same reasons, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based on his assertion of qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 action, a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must establish both a violation of a federal right and that the right was clearly established when the defendant acted.

The Estate of James Roemer v. Shoaga · filed 2019-09-24

When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff has a “heavy two- part burden” of establishing “(1) that the defendant’s action violated a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the right violated was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Grissom v. Roberts, 902 F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Jones v. State of New York · filed 2019-09-24

Because the Court concludes that even viewing all the information in the light most favorable to Mr. Jones, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, it is unnecessary to reach the question of whether Defendants had probable cause.

An officer with probable cause to arrest is entitled to immunity from a Section 1983 claim challenging that arrest.

Teague v. Christian · filed 2019-09-25

No constitutional violation occurred here. The arrest cannot be the subject of Plaintiff’s 1983 claim and Officer Christian is entitled to immunity.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a jury could find that the force used was excessive.

Hammitt v. Stump · filed 2019-09-25

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could determine that the force used by the Defendant was excessive and that he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 claim when the officer did not violate clearly established law.

Rose v. City of Utica · filed 2019-09-25

But the question before us is whether, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Officer Ellis violated clearly established law. He did not.

Supervisors sued under § 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged facts do not show that their inaction violated clearly established law.

JOHN DOE v. HILL · filed 2019-09-25

They are, accordingly, entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 individual capacity claims against them.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when a jury could find that officers knowingly caused an injured prisoner unnecessary pain and the right was clearly established.

Morris v. Lashbrook · filed 2019-09-25

Clark, Fagerland, Johnson, Moore, Pearce, Porter, Pruitt, and Wall also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). ... Moreover, these rights were clearly established at the time of Morris’s alleged injury. Thus, Judge Sison recommends denying the motion for summary judgment. ... Following this review, the Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Judge Sison and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

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

Goodall v. Worcester School Committee · filed 2019-09-25

Accordingly, I find as a matter of law that Coonan and Cardona are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim asserted in Count III.

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

Bond v. Tahlequah, City of · filed 2019-09-25

The right was not “clearly established” until the Ceballos decision.

A defendant may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Kifayatuthelezi v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-25

This Court notes that the Magistrate Judge concludes that qualified immunity is a basis for summary judgment. This Court agrees for the reasons stated and notes that a state post-conviction relief court made a decision adverse to the Plaintiff which was reversed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Until the Court of Appeals ruled, only then would an alleged violation be clearly established.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Murray v. Lilly · filed 2019-09-26

Having found that the Defendants’ conduct did not constitute a constitutional violation and that the law was not clearly established the Defendants’ are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Section 1983 officers may receive qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could believe a challenged stop was lawful.

Bullman v. City of Detroit, Mich. · filed 2019-09-26

Taking the facts assumed by the district court as given, see Romo, 723 F.3d at 675, the district court erred in its legal determination that Officers Bray and Hurd lacked reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the stop of Bullman. Qualified immunity is warranted on this claim because the police officers could reasonably determine that they had a sufficient basis for the stop of Bullman.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited deadly force against a person who posed no threat of serious physical harm.

Campbell v. Johannes · filed 2019-09-26

Finally, we conclude that, in December 2011, when the incident occurred, it was clearly established that Plaintiffs could not be apprehended by deadly force unless they posed a threat of serious physical harm.

Section 1983 defendants receive qualified immunity when the plaintiff has shown no constitutional violation.

Davis 223815 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2019-09-26

Without a Constitutional violation, Defendants receive qualified immunity.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim when the law does not clearly establish that detention beyond a conditional release date is cruel and unusual punishment.

Hurd v. City of New York · filed 2019-09-26

The court agrees with defendant; the relevant case law does not clearly establish or foreshadow that prolonging a prisoner’s detention beyond his conditional release date constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, and in the alternative, defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation and further facts are needed to decide immunity.

Jackson v. Mastrangelo · filed 2019-09-26

The Court finds Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Section 1983 permits claims against parole board members, who are entitled to qualified immunity.

Beck v. Kansas University Psychiatry Foundation · filed 1984-02-10

This court agrees with the decisions in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits that parole board members are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a constitutional right.

Cartwright Ex Rel. Estate of Cartwright v. City of Marine · filed 2003-07-21

For these reasons, we hold that officers Vandermeulen and Rock should have been granted qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Atkins v. Lt. Glaser T · filed 2019-09-27

Because no constitutional violation occurred, defendants Glaser and Cleek are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers have qualified immunity from a § 1983 challenge to a search warrant when their belief that probable cause existed was reasonable despite an error in the warrant application.

Rodriguez-Wakelin v. Barry · filed 2019-09-27

Because the undisputed facts show that official belief in the existence of probable cause was not unreasonable, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim asserting unlawful search and seizure premised on invalidity of the search warrant.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Shabazz v. Dixon · filed 2019-09-27

The Court thus finds that Defendant Morales has a right to qualified immunity claim on Plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise claim.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for government officials sued individually when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of clearly established rights.

McDiffett v. Nance · filed 2019-09-27

In sum, Plaintiff cannot overcome the bar of qualified immunity as to any of his claims.

When officers assert qualified immunity against a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must plead specific facts sufficient to overcome that defense.

Dorosan v. Stewart · filed 2019-09-27

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has failed to overcome the Defendants’ asserted defense of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s account would make their use of force clearly unlawful.

Hicks v. The City of Syracuse · filed 2019-09-27

lf, as he claims, Plaintiff surrendered and placed his hands on top of his head and Defendants in response grabbed his arms and struck him repeatedly in the side with their knees, no reasonable officer under the circumstances would believe that his actions were lawful. Qualified immunity does not apply under these circumstances.

A public official who violates no constitutional right is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Patrick v. Aiken, City of · filed 2019-09-27

Since Cue did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, he is also presumed to be entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state officials in their individual capacities are limited by qualified immunity.

Aguinaga v. Texas Alcohol & Beverage Commission · filed 2004-05-21

Section 1983 actions against state officials in their individual capacities are limited by the doctrine of qualified immunity, id., which al- lows government officials to exercise their of- ficial duties with independence and without fear of liability, so long as they do not act with plain incompetence or disregard of the law.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable person in the official’s position would not know that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Corbett v. Garland · filed 2007-04-06

In light of these facts, it would not be clear to Garland that by discharging Corbett he would be violating her due-process rights.

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

Coffin v. Brandau · filed 2010-02-24

Here, we find it appropriate to first address the clearly established prong. Finding that the Deputies did not violate a right of the Coffins’ that was “clearly established,” we are able to conclude the inquiry there.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Aldridge v. Nye County, Nevada · filed 2019-09-28

Consequently, because there is a genuine dispute of material fact and the Court accordingly takes Plaintiff’s version of events as the non-moving party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has asserted facts which could establish that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, which were clearly established at the time. Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment in a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts prevent the court from determining whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2019-09-30

Therefore, the Court cannot, at this stage, determine whether the defendant has satisfied the second prong of the qualified immunity test.

Qualified immunity does not bar § 1983 official-capacity claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Brown v. Dunn · filed 2019-09-30

Qualified immunity is not a defense to § 1983 official-capacity claims for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges an intentional delay of medical care in violation of clearly established law.

(PC) Courtney v. Kandel · filed 2019-09-30

Accordingly, qualified immunity is not warranted at this stage on this record.

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

Janny v. Harford · filed 2019-09-30

In summary, it was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Janny that Harford and Ortega’s failure to move Rocha-Estupian to another cell would constitute a violation of other inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. Thus, Harford and Ortega are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Janny’s Eighth Amendment claim.

A teacher sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the force used against a student is so plainly excessive that its unlawfulness is obvious.

Spraggins v. Brown · filed 2019-09-30

Accordingly, Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not shield prison officials through qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would know that moving an inmate to more restrictive housing for filing grievances violates clearly established First Amendment rights.

Poole v. Bishop · filed 2019-09-30

A reasonable officer should have known that he could not move an inmate to more restrictive housing for filing ARPs or helping other inmates with their conditions-of-confinement litigation. As a result, the Court concludes NBCI Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage and that Warden Bishop, Chief Bohrer, Lt. Sawyers, Lt. Speir, Sgt. Forney, and Ofc. Tart are not entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against an official when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Stevens 155008 v. Hutchinson · filed 2019-09-30

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff bore his burden on the second prong, Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong, for the reasons previously stated.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against officers accused of deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee.

Muhammad 242898 v. Neher · filed 2019-09-30

In March 2016, Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning incidents that occurred when he was a pretrial detainee. ... The Magistrate Judge also determined that Defendants Neher and Kasher are entitled to qualified immunity (id. at PageID.1476-1477). ... Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity for blocking a home’s doorway or using threats to gain entry when that conduct violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Escoffier v. New York Police Department · filed 2019-09-30

Thus, the Court denies qualified immunity to Officer Marte for placing a foot in the doorway of Escoffier’s home. ... Accordingly, the Court denies qualified immunity to Officer Marte for his entry into Escoffier’s dwelling.

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

Bleiwas v. City Of New York · filed 2019-09-30

Taking into account the “facts available to [Lian] at the time of the arrest and immediately before it,” Lowth, 82 F.3d at 569 — namely, all old police radios are supposed to have been destroyed, none are resold, and Bleiwas, a former radio repairman, possessed thousands of old police radios — the Court finds that Lian possessed at least arguable probable cause to make an arrest, granting him qualified immunity from the false arrest claim.

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

Dopp v. Honaker · filed 2019-09-30

The undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has not shown the violation of a constitutional right and therefore has not met his burden in opposing summary judgment. ... The ODOC Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claims against them in their individual capacities.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiffs fail to establish that the officers violated a clearly established right.

Huerta v. The City of Santa Barbara · filed 2019-10-01

Because Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants violated a clearly established right at the time of the alleged violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when a jury could find that he violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Tresa Brown v. Nocco · filed 2019-10-02

The district court correctly concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Green shot Brown in the back while he lay face down and prone across the center console, turned away from the officers and posing no threat to anyone, and that doing so violated a clearly established constitutional right. While Green may yet succeed on a qualified immunity defense at trial if the fact-finder accepts his version of events, he is not entitled to that immunity at this stage of the litigation. See Perez, 809 F.3d at 1218; Vaughan, 343 F.3d at 1333.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 false arrest claim when, on the facts viewed favorably to the plaintiff, no reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed at the initial seizure.

Roberson v. P.O. Kent Liebermann 225 · filed 2019-10-02

Thus, Roberson’s actions did not supply probable cause or arguable probable cause for resisting an officer or obstruction under § 31-1 as to the initial arrest. Pursuant to Abbott, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from Roberson’s false arrest claim.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts show they violated a clearly established First Amendment right.

R W v. Columbia Basin College · filed 2019-10-04

Moreover, Defendants Ralph Reagan and Lee Thornton are not entitled to qualified immunity because the facts, when taken in the light most favorable to R.W., show that they violated R.W.’s clearly established First Amendment rights.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not sufficiently allege a constitutional violation.

Chang v. Delaware Dept Children & Youth · filed 2019-10-04

Chang’s agreement to transfer custody before the investigation may not preclude his constitutional claim insofar as he alleges the continued denial of custody, but Officer Quinn is entitled to qualified immunity because Chang does not sufficiently allege a violation of his substantive due process rights.

Officers have qualified immunity from § 1983 retaliation claims when reasonable officers could disagree about whether their conduct violated clearly established law.

Picard v. Torneo · filed 2019-10-04

Alternatively, the Court finds that qualified immunity applies because the undisputed facts demonstrate that reasonable officers could disagree about whether it was objectively reasonable for defendants to believe that ... charging plaintiff with the infractions did not violate such law.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Rohan (ID 122011) v. Saline County Jail · filed 2019-10-07

Because the first prong of the qualified-immunity analysis requires a constitutional violation—and because, as discussed, Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of deliberate indifference—these defendants are also protected by qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 defendant can be denied qualified immunity at the pleadings stage when the complaint plausibly alleges conduct violating clearly established rights.

Taylor v. Vangesen · filed 2019-10-08

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of constitutional or federal statutory rights proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. ... “Government officials performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” ... Therefore, the Court finds that VanGesen has not shown he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity limits liability for damages under § 1983 but does not resolve a claim for injunctive relief.

Doe v. Sutton-Wallace · filed 2019-10-10

But because “a finding of qualified immunity extends only to [Defendants’] liability for damages,” the Court must examine Plaintiff’s remaining claim for injunctive relief.

State employees may assert qualified immunity against individual-capacity Section 1983 claims.

Early v. Keith Crockett, Clayborn Carroll, Roberta Lewis, and Lamon Mayo · filed 2019-10-10

State employees’ qualified immunity extends to section 1983 claims.

Individual officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or that the right was clearly established.

Leonard v. Lincoln Co. Board of Commiss. · filed 2019-10-10

The court later granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss the food and assault claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on both claims because Leonard failed to show either a violation of a constitutional right or that the rights at issue were clearly established. ... For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Leonard’s complaint.

Section 1983 allows an excessive force claim against an officer to proceed when disputed facts could show a rights violation and clearly established law gave the officer notice that the force was excessive.

Jackson v. City of Austin · filed 2019-10-11

Jackson has demonstrated the existence of disputed facts regarding whether Jones violated Jackson’s Fourth Amendment rights and has established that Jones was on notice that the force he used was excessive, viewing those disputed facts in the light most favorable to Jackson.

Section 1983 claims against prison officials may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

(PC) Shabazz v. Beard · filed 2019-10-11

Nonetheless, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, plaintiff’s complaint against defendant Igbinosa must be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim based on prisoners’ exposure to Valley Fever when the asserted Eighth Amendment right was not clearly established at the time.

(PC)Perkins v. Brazelton · filed 2019-10-11

Because plaintiff’s complaint and objections provide no basis upon which to distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s binding decision in Hines or the qualified immunity analysis set forth therein, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.

Public officers sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

Rivera v. Cater · filed 2019-10-11

In a suit for damages under § 1983, public officers charged with violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right are entitled to qualified immunity unless the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. ... There was no clearly established law to put these officers on notice that the use of deadly force was unreasonable under these circumstances. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim.

A defendant sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged denial of medical care violates clearly established law.

Weitzman v. McFerrin · filed 2019-10-11

Accordingly, Defendant McFerrin is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time, and the Motion [#67] is denied.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 liability when a reasonable officer could have believed their conduct was lawful and the plaintiff identifies no clearly established right they violated.

Wonsey v. City of Chicago · filed 2019-10-15

Under those circumstances, a reasonable officer could have believed that entry was lawful. Wonsey offers no contrary argument, and she does not point to any violation of statutory or constitu- tional rights, much less clearly established ones. So qualified immunity cloaks defendants’ actions on June 9.

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

Martin v. Bringham · filed 2019-10-15

Therefore, the court finds that both Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 qualified immunity analysis, facts the officer did not know at the time of the challenged conduct are irrelevant to the defense.

Roque v. Harvel · filed 2019-10-16

Because Harvel does not dispute that he had no knowledge of either 911 call, the Court concludes that Exhibits A, B, and E of his motion are irrelevant to his motion for summary judgment. The Court therefore strikes Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 57-1), Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 57-2), and Exhibit E (Dkt. No. 57-5) from Harvel’s motion for summary judgment.

Qualified immunity bars a civil detainee’s § 1983 claim based on Valley Fever exposure when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the exposure.

(PC) Samuels v. Ahlin · filed 2019-10-16

Although Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims are analyzed under different standards, this does not undermine the applicability to this case of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Hines, in which the court concluded that exposure to a heightened risk of contracting Valley Fever did not violate clearly established federal law or constitutional rights at the time period in question in that case. ... Because plaintiffs allegations and argument provide no basis upon which to distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s binding decision in Hines or the qualified immunity analysis set forth therein, the undersigned concludes that defendants’ motion for reconsideration must be granted.

Section 1983 defendants sued for damages in their individual capacities may assert qualified immunity, which did not warrant dismissal of these plausibly pleaded First Amendment claims.

Mitchell v. Duval County Jail/Doc. PDF · filed 2019-10-16

To defeat qualified immunity as to these Defendants, Mitchell must show both that a constitutional violation occurred, and that the constitutional right violated was clearly established. The Court has determined that Mitchell has stated plausible First Amendment claims against Defendants, and therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, shows an officer used deadly force against a subdued, unarmed suspect in violation of clearly established law.

Estate of Sylville K Smith v. City of Milwaukee Wisconsin · filed 2019-10-18

Heaggan-Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Section 1983 defendants cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when material fact disputes prevent a finding that their conduct was objectively reasonable.

Hmeid v. Nelson Coleman Correctional Center · filed 2019-10-18

Because material fact disputes preclude a finding that their conduct was objectively reasonable, defendants’ qualified immunity defense cannot prevail on summary judgment.

Section 1983 claims against prison officials over exposure to Valley Fever spores can be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

(PC) Roberson v. Manasrah · filed 2019-10-21

Because plaintiffs allegations provide no basis upon which to distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s binding decision in Hines or the qualified immunity analysis set forth therein, the undersigned concludes that defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.

Section 1983 damages claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Mares v. Colorado Division of Insurance · filed 2019-10-21

Qualified immun- ity applies unless the official’s conduct violated such a clearly estab- lished right. ... Here, Plaintiffs fail to show that clearly established rights were violated.

Section 1983 does not shield officers from individual liability for a warrantless arrest when they lack arguable probable cause and the right was clearly established.

Agee v. Lima · filed 2019-10-21

The Court finds that the individual officers are not entitled to qualified immunity regarding the plaintiff's warrantless arrest.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

McKnight v. Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Welfare and Suportive Services · filed 2019-10-21

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

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

Hollingsworth v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency · filed 2019-10-21

The Court holds that even if the use of a surveillance camera on Plaintiff’s hunting property violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, the specific parameters of such a right were not so well defined in 2017 that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated the Constitution.

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

Millinder v. Hudgins · filed 2019-10-21

In the absence of clear authority, the Court holds that Hudgins is entitled to qualified immunity on Millinder’s state created danger claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a prison officer when the plaintiff shows neither a constitutional violation nor that reasonable officers would have known the conduct was unconstitutional.

Thornton v. Phillips · filed 2019-10-21

But these allegations are not sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. Plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right, nor has he established all reasonable prison officials would know Officer Phillips’s conduct violated the Constitution.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged force was clearly unlawful under the facts accepted at summary judgment.

Farley v. J.L. Stephens · filed 2019-10-23

Based on the facts this Court must accept, the Court finds Defendant Officers Stephens and Reynolds are not entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Farley’s excessive force claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when existing precedent gave fair warning that the force used was unconstitutional.

Murphy v. Fields · filed 2019-10-23

For the reasons above, the court concludes Fields is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. Accordingly, Fields’ motion for summary judgment on the Fifth Cause of Action is denied.

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

Wilkinson v. Magrann · filed 2019-10-24

At the time that defendants investigated Wilkinson and obtained a search warrant, it was not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity that it violated Wilkinson’s double jeopardy rights to prosecute him for perjury for allegedly testifying falsely in traffic court.

Section 1983 does not allow recovery against an officer who is entitled to qualified immunity because the law governing the alleged violation was not clearly established when the officer acted.

Cugini v. City of New York, Palazzola · filed 2019-10-25

Nevertheless, because at the time of the defendantʹs actions it was not clearly established law that a plaintiff who did not verbally complain or request to have her handcuffs adjusted or removed, or both, could nevertheless recover on a handcuffing‐based excessive force claim, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

A public official has qualified immunity from a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim when liability for a recommendation by a nonfinal decisionmaker was not clearly established at the time.

Clarkston v. White · filed 2019-10-25

Because White was not a final decisionmaker, it was not clearly established that he could be liable for his recommendation to the BESE. Accordingly, he is entitled to QI.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibited their conduct.

Watts v. Maroney · filed 2019-10-28

Accordingly, it was clearly established at the time of Watts’s arrest that the Fourth Amendment prohibited the officers from entering at least seven feet into the apartment to conduct a warrantless arrest for a $16.70 cab fare and there were no exigent circumstances. Qualified immunity was therefore properly denied.

Qualified immunity did not warrant dismissal of the § 1983 claims at this stage.

(PC) Crowder v. Fox · filed 2019-10-29

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ... 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: ... (i) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of qualified immunity is DENIED; and ... 5. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when material factual disputes remain about whether their use of force was reasonable.

Hammond v. County of Oakland · filed 2019-10-29

Overall, based on the record, there is a material question of fact as to whether Hammond posed a threat and whether the use of force, including the use of Odin, was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. Accordingly, Cadotte, Salyers, and Welch are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim enforcing § 1981 when the law did not clearly establish that the alleged conduct was unlawful.

Minnifield v. Heath Boackle · filed 2019-10-30

The test for disparate treatment under that section, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § ... 1983, is the same as that used in Title VII cases. ... Sergeant Boackle is entitled to qualified immunity.

Parole officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could believe their conduct was lawful under the circumstances.

HART v. TARRANT · filed 2019-10-30

Officer Tarrant’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances given the information he had at the time. Likewise, Officer Mackey’s actions were also reasonable.

In a § 1983 suit, once officers show they acted within their discretionary authority, the plaintiff must show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Hamilton v. City of Lakeland Police Department · filed 2019-10-31

Therefore, the Defendants have met their initial burden in establishing qualified immunity. This means the burden shifts to Hamilton to prove that the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a § 1983 claim when material facts about what an officer observed before a stop remain for a jury.

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10 · filed 2019-10-31

As to the initial stop, qualified immunity cannot be granted, if only because serious jury issues remain as to what Officer Gregory observed before ordering the detention.

Section 1983 defendants cannot obtain judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity when they identify no legitimate penological interest for restricting an inmate’s religious exercise.

Pleasant-Bey v. Shelby County Government · filed 2019-10-31

Without a legitimate penological interest in preventing Plaintiff from wearing his kufi, Plaintiff states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Chief Moore and Officer Gatewood have no right to judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, an officer’s assertion of qualified immunity shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show that the defense does not apply.

Bryant v. Gillem · filed 2019-10-31

Gillem has asserted the defense of qualified immunity in his motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the burden has shifted to Plaintiff to demonstrate that he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity on false-arrest and retaliatory-arrest claims when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Johnson v. McCarver · filed 2019-11-01

The officers here are entitled to qualified immunity on these First and Fourth Amendment claims if Johnson’s arrest was supported by at least arguable probable cause. ... We conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. ... What the officers saw, in addition to what Webster told McCarver, along with Johnson’s resistance to the officers’ commands to leave, provided arguable probable cause to arrest for trespass.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Grant v. Frederick · filed 2019-11-01

Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Fourth Amendment survives summary judgment.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates clearly established law.

Valencia v. The Board of Regents, University of New Mexico · filed 2019-11-04

Given that the named Defendants allegedly violated clearly established law, they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

When the constitutional right at issue was clearly established, an officer’s reasonable belief that the conduct was lawful does not establish qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Harris v. City of New York · filed 2019-11-04

Here, defendants do not dispute that the constitutional rights at issue were clearly established at the time of plaintiff's arrest, and yet their proposed interrogatories essentially ask the jury to find that the officers held a reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the law. Accordingly, their request to submit the special interrogatories to the jury is denied.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer with qualified immunity when the alleged use of force violates a Fourth Amendment right that was clearly established at the time.

Betton v. Belue · filed 2019-11-05

Thus, we hold under our established standard of review that Officer Belue’s alleged conduct violated Betton’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force, a right that was clearly established at the time the conduct occurred.

A prison medical provider is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the prisoner fails to show a constitutional violation.

Hampton v. Brindley · filed 2019-11-06

Because there is no evidence that Dr. Hulipas deliberately ignored a serious risk of harm by failing to request an earlier appointment with a specialist on May 31, 2016, Hampton’s arguments are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on whether a constitutional violation occurred and he has not overcome Dr. Hulipas’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Individual defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Stoops v. Larson · filed 2019-11-06

Even assuming Plaintiff’s claims were not barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he has not met his burden of showing that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights; therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Evans v. Heimgartner · filed 2019-11-06

Plaintiff thus fails to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense because he didn’t make out a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Consequently, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

A supervising officer who arrives after an arrest may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when he may rely on the arresting officer’s account and has no notice that the arrest was unlawful.

Wilkerson v. Seymour · filed 2013-10-30

As Sergeant Parker was permitted to rely upon the account of Officer Seymour, which did not raise any obvious concerns as to the existence of probable cause, he is entitled to qualified immunity from Wilkerson’s false arrest claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional rights were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Ortega v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement · filed 2013-12-10

Just as qualified immunity applies to Ortega’s due process claim, it thus also applies to his illegal-seizure claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 warrantless-arrest claim if the arrest was supported by at least arguable probable cause.

Clayton Walker v. Peterson · filed 2014-08-28

We also conclude that the district court did not err in entering judgment against Walker on his unlawful-arrest claim. See Hill v. McKinley, 311 F.3d 899, 902 (8th Cir. 2002) (post-trial qualified-immunity determination reviewed de novo), see also Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1226 (8th Cir. 2013) (officer is entitled to qualified immunity for warrantless arrest if it was supported by at least arguable probable cause).

A caseworker lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for seizing children without a court order when there are no even arguable emergency circumstances requiring immediate removal.

Southerland v. Woo · filed 2014-09-10

However, I disagree that there were even arguable emergency circumstances here that warranted immediate seizure of the children, and thus Woo does not have qualified immunity for the seizure.

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

Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights · filed 2015-04-13

Therefore, Del Boccio is entitled to qualified immunity and Count IV against him was properly dis- missed.

Officers facing a Section 1983 claim may receive qualified immunity for relying in good faith on a duly enacted ordinance as interpreted by their department.

Taylor v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2019-11-07

On the other hand, the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their good faith reliance on the duly-enacted statute as interpreted by LVMPD.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officials acting within their discretionary authority when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Bennett v. Langford · filed 2019-11-08

As to qualified immunity, because Langford and Cherry were acting within their discretionary authority, the burden shifted to Bennett to show that their actions violated a clearly established constitutional right. ... Therefore, we determine that the district court correctly concluded that Bennett’s claimed First Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Government officials sued individually under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right.

Dejesus v. The State of Delaware · filed 2019-11-08

As a general matter, government officials sued in their individual capacity under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Because Plaintiffs’ have not established that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to DeJesus’s particular vulnerability to suicide, Defendants have not violated a federal statute or a constitutional right and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when established law gave fair notice that the alleged force was unconstitutional.

Barfield v. Kershaw County Sheriff's Office · filed 2016-01-07

As such, we have no trouble finding the law clearly established at the time of Barfield’s arrest.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges that they ignored a known, substantial risk of inmate-on-inmate violence and their duty to act was clearly established.

Scott v. Miami Dade County · filed 2016-08-01

Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. At the time of the events underlying this suit, it was clearly established that a prison official violates an inmate’s constitutional rights where the official is aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate, including an inmate-on-inmate attack, and takes no action. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture, and the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint is AFFIRMED.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Hedgpeth v. Rahim · filed 2016-10-03

Faced with a clearer picture now that Defendants did not behave so unreasonably that they could be liable individually for this incident, the Court grants their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Section 1983 permits a procedural due process claim against individual officials to proceed past a qualified immunity motion when the complaint alleges deprivation of a protected employment interest without sufficient process.

Cordova v. New Mexico · filed 2017-10-06

Plaintiff brings his fourth claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and labels it "Interest In Continued Employment." ... The individual Defendants contend that they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not established that their conduct violated his constitutional right. But Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants neither possessed nor articulated just cause for his dismissal. ... It is clearly established that the deprivation of a protected interest in employment without sufficient process is a constitutional violation. ... Consequently, the Court will deny the Motion as to the due process claim.

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

Francis v. Fiacco · filed 2019-11-12

Because Francis has sued the State Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in the course of their official duties, his lawsuit must overcome the qualified immunity that shields executive officials from such liability. ... Accordingly, though we identify a constitutional violation pursuant to such an analysis, we conclude that qualified immunity protects the State Defendants from damages liability under the circumstances of this particular case.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the record does not show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gomez v. Hughes Unit UTMB Health Provid · filed 2019-11-12

The record thus shows no error in connection with the district court’s conclusions ... that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that they did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Gomez’s serious medical needs.

Section 1983 provides qualified immunity to an officer when the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct was not clearly established under the specific circumstances.

Reynolds v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2019-11-12

Therefore, even if a constitutional violation did occur, Merenda is entitled to qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to Merenda that his actions were unlawful.

In a § 1983 suit, once an official shows that her actions were discretionary, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a violation of clearly established rights to defeat qualified immunity.

Mack v. Ti'Quita Miles · filed 2019-11-13

Once a defendant raises qualified immunity as a defense, and demonstrates that her actions were discretionary in nature, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant violated his clearly-established constitutional rights. Whittier, 581 F.3d at 1308. Mack failed to meet this burden.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a prison appeals official when it was not clearly established that affirming a disciplinary decision would make the official liable for the alleged due process violation.

McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser · filed 2019-11-13

Accordingly, SHU Dir. Venettozzi is immune from suit in his individual capacity as to the due process claims, and such claims are dismissed.

Officers sued under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity, but the defense may be denied at summary judgment.

Cole v. Hunter · filed 2018-09-25

Cole’s parents, Karen and Randy, individually and as next friends of their son (collectively “the Coles”) brought suit against Officer Carl Carson, Lieutenant Martin Cassidy, and Officer Michael Hunter of the Sachse Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... We affirm the denial of Cassidy and Hunter’s motion for summary judgment, otherwise reinstate our previous opinion in this case, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Scheffler v. Lee · filed 2018-10-05

In the context of a false arrest claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “an arresting agent is entitled to qualified immunity if he or she could reasonably (even if erroneously) have believed that the arrest was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information possessed at the time by the arresting agent.” Harris, 513 F.3d at 511.

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

Karels v. Storz · filed 2018-10-15

Viewing the facts in the appropriate light, several cases establish that every reasonable officer would have understood that he could not forcefully take down Karels—a nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanant who was not actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee—in the allegedly violent and uncontrolled manner that Storz did.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful-arrest claim when probable cause for the arrest was reasonably arguable.

Anni Ma v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2019-03-07

In the context of an unlawful arrest, officers are entitled to qualified immunity if it is at least “reasonably arguable that there was probable cause for arrest.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the officers had “reasonably arguable” probable cause to arrest Ma because “reasonable officers could disagree” as to whether California Penal Code section 314(1)’s prohibition on the exposure of “private parts” includes female breasts and nipples.

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

Hunt v. Board of Regents of UNM · filed 2019-11-14

In confining its review to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the district court determined that the law was not clearly established and that defendants, therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity. We agree.

Section 1983 claims against an officer are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated clearly established law.

Defrates v. Podany · filed 2019-11-14

Defrates has not risen to the challenge; Podany’s qualified immunity remains intact. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

A plaintiff who fails to demonstrate a constitutional violation cannot overcome qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action.

Skinner v. Winfrey · filed 2019-11-14

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Skinner has not demonstrated a constitutional violation and thus cannot overcome Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Doe v. Woodard · filed 2019-01-03

Here, after reviewing existing case law, the opinion concludes that the law was not clearly established that the special needs exception did not apply, and therefore the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials sued individually under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when the alleged unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established at the time.

Barcelona v. Secretary of D.O.C. · filed 2019-09-10

The Defendants, in their individual capacities, are protected by qualified immunity because the alleged unconstitutionality of their conduct was not clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to this suit.

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

Merritt v. Arizona, State of · filed 2019-11-15

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under the second step because Plaintiff’s rights were not clearly established at the time of his arrest.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material facts about the officer’s conduct remain disputed.

Banks-Reed v. Bay Area Rapid Transit · filed 2019-11-15

Given these factual disputes, qualified immunity is not appropriately decided on summary judgment.

Section 1983 claims against foster care officials require deliberate indifference to a child’s safety; negligence in placing a child does not defeat qualified immunity.

Daniel v. Georgia Department of Human Services · filed 2019-11-15

Even if she was negligent or careless in relying on the outside company and appointing the Rosenbaums as Laila’s fictive kin, her negligence or carelessness would not defeat qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Elston v. Collins · filed 2019-11-15

The Court holds that Elston has not alleged a constitutional violation by Pollard or Zuccarini and, therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity against Elston’s allegations.

Qualified immunity may shield officials from § 1983 damages, but dismissal on that ground at the pleading stage is rare when the facts are undeveloped.

Sand v. Hafemann · filed 2019-11-18

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense and, absent a more developed record, the court is unable to determine whether it has any application here.

A court should permit a § 1983 defendant to file a dispositive motion asserting qualified immunity and rule on it after briefing.

Lopez v. Foerster · filed 2019-11-18

On remand, the ... district court should permit Graham to file a dispositive motion based on qualified immunity and rule on that motion after briefing from the parties.