42 U.S.C. § 1983

An officer sued under § 1983 for excessive force has qualified immunity when the force was not so obviously unlawful that every reasonable officer would recognize it as unconstitutional.

Hines v. Jefferson · filed 2019-11-18

Viewed in the light most favorable to K.S., Deputy Jefferson’s conduct, including placing K.S. in a choke hold and carrying her to the office by her neck, does not fall within the narrow obvious-clarity exception.

Government employees performing discretionary duties are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Walker v. Tuscaloosa County School Board · filed 2019-11-18

Here, Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of overcoming Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. Even if the decision to leave Rebecca and D.J. alone in the van constituted a violation of Rebecca’s substantive due process rights, Plaintiffs cannot show that such a right was clearly established at the time.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 false arrest claim when every reasonable officer would recognize that the arrest lacked probable cause.

Laizure v. Washington County · filed 2019-11-18

The Court finds that with knowledge of the applicable statute, any reasonable officer would agree that Deputy Tran did not have probable cause to arrest Laizure here. Because Deputy Tran’s arrest of Laizure violated clearly established law, Deputy Tran is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim at summary judgment when, taking the plaintiff’s evidence as true, false warrant statements leave no arguable probable cause.

Darnell Brown v. C.R. Gill · filed 2019-11-19

Our circuit recognizes a federal malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 as having two constituent elements. ... With that in mind, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. As indicated above, we accept for purposes of this appeal that Gill falsified information in the affidavits supporting his arrest warrants and therefore, he would not have had arguable probable cause to arrest Brown.

A defendant facing a § 1983 false arrest claim is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when a material factual dispute determines whether the arrest was reasonable.

Hall v. Brammell · filed 2019-11-19

Given the existence of material facts in dispute and the necessity of credibility determinations, Brammell is not entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment is not warranted.

Government officials have qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Proctor v. Krzanowski · filed 2019-11-19

The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks a property or liberty interest in acceptance of his written certifications, or at least his interest was not clearly established, such that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the lack of probable cause for the underlying lawsuit was not clearly established while they pursued it.

Advantageous Community Services, LLC v. King · filed 2019-11-19

Thus, because the lack of probable cause for the State’s lawsuit was not clearly established until after the lawsuit against Advantageous was dismissed, the State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for initiating and continuing the lawsuit.

Section 1983 provides qualified immunity to officers when a reasonable officer would not have understood that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Turner v. City Of New York · filed 2019-11-19

Because the Court cannot conclude that a reasonable officer would have understood that stopping and searching plaintiff’s backpack violated plaintiff’s clearly established right, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for that conduct.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim based on exposure to Valley Fever when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time they acted.

(PC)Davis v. Kelso · filed 2019-11-20

Therefore, as directed by the Ninth Circuit’s June 13, 2019 order, the undersigned will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this action on the grounds that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in this case.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when genuine disputes about an official’s retaliatory motive remain.

Webb v. Lincoln Parish Sheriffs Office · filed 2019-11-21

Thus, gtanting Stone qualified immunity would be improper when genuine disputes of material fact remain as to his motivations in terminating Webb.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit has qualified immunity from a prisoner’s First Amendment retaliation claim based on a request for medical attention when that right was not clearly established.

James v. Gage · filed 2019-11-21

Thus, a constitutional right to request medical attention is not clearly established, and Gage is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against officials when the alleged right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Eades v. Wetzel · filed 2019-11-22

The Court, therefore, concludes that any alleged violation of Plaintiff’s right to privacy under the facts alleged was not a clearly established right under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when their use of deadly force does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Garza v. Briones · filed 2019-11-25

Plaintiff, as Garza’s administrator, brought a § 1983 claim alleging, inter alia, that defendants had used excessive force. ... Because defendants are entitled to QI, the summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

A Section 1983 claim against individual officers may survive a motion to dismiss and a qualified immunity defense when the complaint plausibly alleges an arrest without probable cause.

HOLMES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT · filed 2019-11-25

The question before this Court is, does the complaint sufficiently allege that the police officer defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Keith Holmes for violation of the above-section of the vehicle code? We think the answer is yes. ... For the same reasons we deny the individual Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 class-of-one equal protection claim at this stage when the evidence could let a jury find that an officer acted without a rational basis and out of personal animus.

Frederickson v. Landeros · filed 2019-11-26

We therefore agree with the district court that Frederickson has presented sufficient evidence to defeat qualified immunity at this stage.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Correia v. Jones · filed 2019-11-27

Because Correia cannot demonstrate a constitutional violation, Jones is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Ayala v. Hogsten · filed 2019-12-02

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officials could disagree about whether their conduct was unlawful.

Arellano v. Ojeda · filed 2019-12-02

In sum, “officers of reasonable competence could disagree” on the issue of whether Defendant Mack’s failure to follow up for those four to five hours was unlawful, and therefore Mack is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer who arrests someone with probable cause is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim.

McDowell v. Gonzalez · filed 2019-12-02

Thus, because Officer Gonzalez had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, the Court concludes that he is entitled to qualified immunity. As such, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim fails.

Section 1983 shields officials from individual liability through qualified immunity when their alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Feucht v. Triad Local Schools Board of Education · filed 2019-12-02

Here, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the individual Defendants’ alleged conduct (the false assurances) did not violate “clearly established law” because, at the time of the challenged conduct (at least), the contours of the right with respect to that alleged conduct were not sufficiently clear such that “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officers when clearly established law gave them fair warning that their use of force was unconstitutional.

Slater v. Deasey · filed 2019-12-03

We agree that the force was excessive, but viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, see Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), we conclude that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when disputed facts could show that they violated an arrestee’s clearly established right to be free from unjustified exposure.

Chaney v. City of Framingham · filed 2019-12-03

Taking these facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury, weighing the officers’ safety considerations against the plaintiff’s rights, might find that the officers were not justified in forcing plaintiff to leave his apartment covered only with a towel. ... Defendants have not established they are entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is denied.

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

Martinez v. City of Clovis · filed 2019-12-04

Hershberger and Sanders are entitled to qualified immunity because the due process right conferred in the context before us was not clearly established.

A public official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional liability was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Clarkston v. White · filed 2019-12-04

White is entitled to QI because, at the time of his alleged violation, it was not clearly established that First Amendment liability could attach to a public official who did not possess final decisionmaking authority.

A defendant who does not raise qualified immunity in a Rule 12(b) motion waives the right to avoid or limit discovery on that ground, but may raise the defense at summary judgment.

O'Donnell v. Yezzo · filed 2019-12-06

Because White did not raise a qualified immunity defense in a Rule 12(b) motion, however, I find that he has “waive[d] the right to avoid discovery” or seek to limit its scope on qualified immunity grounds (though he may of course raise the defense in a motion for summary judgment).

Section 1983 does not impose individual liability on an official who has qualified immunity because the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established.

Metcalf v. Key · filed 2019-12-09

Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual capacities from liability in § 1983 suits. ... Furthermore, Defendant Peterson is entitled to qualified immunity and is therefore not liable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to show that he had a constitutional right to have a medical appointment conducted in a certain way or that the way his appointment was conducted amounts to a constitutional violation. Plaintiff has also failed to show that a reasonable prison official in Defendant Peterson’s shoes would have known that it would be unconstitutional to conduct a medical appointment in that way.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim based on delayed pepper-spray decontamination or denied medical care when no unconstitutional force preceded it and the asserted right was not clearly established.

Martz v. Cravens · filed 2019-12-09

Specifically, it was not clearly established that--absent a prior use of unconstitutional excessive force--defendants could be held liable for excessive force based on the failure to decontaminate or the denial of medical care alone.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Ross v. Alford · filed 2019-12-09

Overcoming a qualified-immunity defense requires plaintiff show both a clearly established right and violation of that right. ... Ross provided no competent summary-judgment evidence to overcome appellees’ being entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Castaway v. Traudt · filed 2019-12-09

Because the Court concludes that even viewing the facts in the light most favor- able to the plaintiff, Officer Traudt’s actions did not violate clearly es- tablished law, it does not address the parties’ other arguments.

Prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 due process claim when binding precedent put them on notice that a year in unusually harsh segregation could implicate a liberty interest.

Blackman v. Butler · filed 2019-12-09

Based on these facts and the binding Seventh Circuit precedent, the Court concurs with Judge Sison that Defendants are not protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the facts establish neither probable cause nor arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Pierce v. Brashears · filed 2019-12-10

The district court, upon a close analysis of the elements of the crimes alleged, determined that the facts proffered by Detective Brashears are insufficient to establish probable cause, or even arguable probable cause, to arrest the Pierces. Accordingly, the district court denied him qualified immunity on the Pierces’ constitutional claims. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned order and affirm the denial of qualified immunity to Detective Brashears on the Pierces’ claim of malicious prosecution.

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

Sours v. Karr · filed 2019-12-10

We also conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Sours’s claim that Karr violated his rights by extending the traffic stop for a drug-dog sniff, because, at the time of the May 2014 traffic stop, it was not clearly established that the extension of the stop was unconstitutional.

An official sued under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when acting within discretionary authority and the complaint does not allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Metz v. Matos · filed 2019-12-10

On the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Hines is entitled to qualified immunity for this First Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim when reasonable officials would not have understood that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ballinger v. Town of Kingston · filed 2019-12-10

Thus, even if there were a constitutional violation, Chief Splaine would be entitled to qualified immunity, because objectively reasonable officials would not have understood under the circumstances that the conduct at issue could have violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to free speech.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against an officer when the challenged conduct violated no clearly established law.

Ortiz v. Mora · filed 2019-12-10

Despite this conclusion, Mora is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that he did not violate clearly established law.

Qualified immunity can shield officials from monetary damages on a Section 1983 claim.

Gross, John v. Boughton, Gary · filed 2019-12-11

Since the evidence of record would not permit a reasonable trier of fact to find for Gross on the merits of his constitutional claims, and qualified immunity shields defendants from monetary damages in any event, the court will grant defendants’ motion.

A Section 1983 false-arrest claim may survive dismissal when the alleged facts support an inference that the officers lacked even arguable probable cause.

Watkins v. Sergeant M. Bigwood · filed 2019-12-11

Because Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts from which we may infer, for now at least, that he was detained under the Baker Act without probable cause or even arguable probable cause, the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not support dismissal at the pleading stage when the complaint adequately alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Wells v. Turlich · filed 2019-12-11

Finally, Egan’s qualified immunity argument is without merit as a pleading matter because, under the two-step Saucier test, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged (1) that defendants’ actions amount to a violation of constitutional law; and (2) that the constitutional right to adequate medical care was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when material facts about the officer’s conduct remain disputed.

McClure v. Torres · filed 2019-12-11

Based on the current record, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Torres kicked plaintiff in the face repeatedly and whether that type of force could be considered a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Defendant Torres is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

State court decisions can help establish that an officer lacked qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim.

Sloley v. VanBramer · filed 2019-12-12

To be clear, we need not and do not decide whether a decision of a state court, standing alone, would necessarily suffice to defeat a Section 1983 defendant’s claim to qualified immunity in every case. Nevertheless, “[s]tate court decisions, like the decisions of other federal lower courts, are relevant and often persuasive” authority on the “clearly established” issue.

In a Section 1983 suit, an individual official’s qualified immunity defense creates a strong presumption in favor of staying discovery against an entity defendant.

Estate of Birendra Thakuri v. City of Westminster · filed 2019-12-12

The Court agrees that an entity defendant may not be entitled to an automatic and complete stay of discovery simply because an individual defendant has asserted qualified immunity. However, the Court reads Iqbal to direct a strong presumption in favor of a stay as to discovery from entity defendants when an individual defendant has asserted qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights.

Longacre v. Smarr · filed 2019-12-13

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights. ... Trooper Smarr has qualified immunity from Longacre’s § 1983 claims.

A supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged facts would not alert an objectively reasonable supervisor that his conduct threatened constitutional rights.

Penate v. Hanchett · filed 2019-12-13

We hold that Hanchett is entitled to qualified immunity because, under the circumstances alleged, an objectively reasonable lab supervisor would not have discerned that his acts and omissions threatened to violate the constitutional rights of ... criminal defendants whose suspected narcotics were being tested at the Lab.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant violated a constitutional right.

Aiken v. Hall · filed 2019-12-13

Here, Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient evidence that Defendant Lee’s conduct violated any constitutional rights. As such, Defendant Lee is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim alleging that a prison official opened marked legal mail outside the inmate’s presence when the right to be present was clearly established.

(PC) Corral v. Woodman · filed 2019-12-16

Defendant’s argument is without merit. By November 2017, when the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred, it was clearly established in this Circuit that inmate legal mail can only be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity for a school official whose conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

K.J. v. GREATER EGG HARBOR REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2019-12-16

As to Defendant Ottepka, he is entitled to qualified immunity for transferring K.J. to the police department.

Public officials are protected from individual liability under § 1983 when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Spero v. Vestal Central School District · filed 2019-12-16

Moreover, it is objectively reasonable for Defendants Ahearn and Penna to believe that imposing an eighteen-month suspension did not violate clearly established law. The Court has not found any Supreme Court or Second Circuit case that forbids school officials from imposing an out-of-school suspension for eighteen months. Accordingly, it is objectively reasonable that Defendants Ahearn and Penna believed they were within their right to impose such a substantial punishment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.

Edwards v. Harmon · filed 2019-12-16

Because he has failed to carry his burden of establishing a violation of his constitutional rights, and because the law is not clearly established that the Defendants’ actions violated the law, Defendants Harmon, Foreman, Lee, and Swaim are granted qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 claim against an officer may be dismissed at the pleading stage on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Ghunim v. Cunningham · filed 2019-12-16

“[D]ismissal nevertheless is appropriate when the defendant is entitled to a meritorious affirmative defense such as qualified immunity.” Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 240 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see also Gavitt v. Born, 835 F. 3d 623, 649 (6th Cir. 2016) (affirming the dismissal of § 1983 claims on qualified immunity grounds). ... Accordingly, Cunningham is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 action, a state official is entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence does not establish a violation of a federal right.

A.S. v. Lincoln County R-III School District · filed 2019-12-17

On this basis alone, Lillard is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Qualified immunity protects a defendant from a § 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates no clearly established right.

Allah v. The City of New York · filed 2019-12-17

Allah has offered no further persuasive argument for why the alleged actions, assuming Hoffman-Rosenfeld made the alleged diagnosis at all, would violate clearly defined rights, so the Court will not reconsider its conclusion that they do not. As that conclusion was independently sufficient to support the Court’s finding of qualified immunity, the Court sees no reason to reconsider its subsequent assessment of the reasonableness of Hoffman-Rosenfeld’s examination.

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

Latson v. Clarke · filed 2019-12-18

Accordingly, notwithstanding the dreadful conditions imposed on Latson, we can only conclude that MCTC staff are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would have known the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Scott v. Lewis · filed 2019-12-18

Namely, a reasonable official would understand that interfering with an inmate diagnosed with urologic and prostate conditions—indeed, being transported specifically to see a urologist for those conditions and asking to use the restroom in light of those conditions—from urinating in a bathroom for four hours at a time, violates the inmate’s right to be free from interference with his serious medical need. Defendant Scyphers is not entitled to summary judgment on the qualified immunity defense for the claim brought against him in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on officers whose use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Reich v. City of Elizabethtown, Ky. · filed 2019-12-19

Because the officers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we hold that qualified immunity shields the officers and AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when genuine factual disputes determine whether the defense applies.

Overmere v. Zalocki · filed 2019-12-19

Thus, the Court finds that those genuine issues of fact preclude it from granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive force claim when no clearly established law would make the officer liable for the force used in the circumstances.

Westry v. Leon · filed 2019-12-21

To the extent that Mr. Westry is arguing that his offer to give them the infant child, after they began using more force, but before the use of the TASER, constitutes compliance sufficient to make the TASER’s use excessive, there is no clearly established law that would result in liability for Officer Leon at that level of specificity.

Officers sued under § 1983 for false arrest are entitled to qualified immunity when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Reynolds v. City of Daytona Beach · filed 2019-12-23

Because the Court finds arguable probable cause existed and that is all that is required for qualified immunity to apply, the Court will not discuss whether actual probable cause existed.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects a prosecutor’s statements to law enforcement made within his discretionary authority when they violate no clearly established constitutional right.

Washington v. Miami Dade Police Department · filed 2019-12-23

In addition, the Court finds that Howard Rosen has qualified immunity for statements made in his discretionary authority, which do not violate clearly established constitutional law.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 for using a chokehold on a non-resisting, restrained person because that use of force violates clearly established law.

Tuuamalemalo v. Greene · filed 2019-12-24

Given the state of the law in our circuit, it was clearly established that the use of a chokehold on a non-resisting, restrained person violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on the use of excessive force.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established law at the time.

A. T. v. Baldo · filed 2019-12-24

In light of the above, addressing the second part of the Saucier inquiry, see Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, we hold that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 First Amendment claim when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, the officer arrests someone without arguable probable cause to stop protected protest and filming.

Toole v. Officer Zorn · filed 2019-12-26

Reading the facts in Toole’s favor, he was unlawfully arrested without arguable probable cause while engaging in protected First Amendment conduct—protesting and filming police activities—specifically to stop him from doing so. Zorn, therefore, violated Toole’s clearly established First Amendment rights and isn’t entitled to qualified immunity.

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

McCowan v. Morales · filed 2019-12-27

Officer Moralez, then, was surely on notice in August 2015, when he arrested McCowan, that his gratuitous application of force to McCowan, a fully subdued, compliant and non-threatening misdemeanant arrestee, violated the Fourth Amendment. We, therefore, uphold the district court’s decision to deny Officer Moralez qualified immunity from McCowan’s excessive force claim based on the “rough ride” he took in the back of Officer Moralez’s patrol car.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false-arrest claim when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Walz v. Randall · filed 2019-12-27

Deputies Quandt and Randall are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim premised on a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Qualified immunity does not require a prior case with identical facts; a case involving similar circumstances can clearly establish the right.

Gaines v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2019-12-27

But Supreme Court precedent provides that the qualified-immunity inquiry depends on a case with “similar” facts, not “the same” facts.

A defendant cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim on a motion to dismiss when the complaint leaves a factual dispute about her motive.

Thibault v. Spino · filed 2019-12-30

Because it does not appear “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim that would entitle [her]to relief,” Citibank, 968 F.2d at 1494, and because “a factual issue exists on the issue of motive or intent,” Ganim, 342 F.3d at 114, Defendant Spino’s Motion to Dismiss Count Two on the basis of qualified immunity must be denied.

An official may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the record shows that lawful considerations motivated the challenged employment decision.

BLASH v. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE AND PULASKI COUNTY GEORGIA SHERRIF'S OFFICE · filed 2019-12-30

Accordingly, Defendant Cape is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Blash’s race-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Thus, because Defendant Cape terminated Blash for allegedly interfering with an investigation, his reasons were lawful and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when they had probable cause to make the arrest.

Thompson v. Hammond City · filed 2019-12-30

Accordingly, Sgt. Bivona and Officer Barthelemy are both entitled to qualified immunity with regard to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation or show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Morris v. City of Tulsa · filed 2019-12-31

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim (eighth claim for relief), because plaintiff has not met his burden to allege that a constitutional violation occurred or that the law supporting any constitutional violation was clearly established.

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

Moreno v. The City of Uvalde, Texas · filed 2020-01-03

In sum, Moreno has failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact whether Meyer used excessive force in arresting him. As a result, he has failed to show any violation of his Fourth Amendment right, which is a required element to overcome a qualified immunity defense.

Officials acting within their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Watkins v. Dunkin Finch · filed 2020-01-03

Here, the district court did not err in concluding that Finch and Wishnoff were entitled to qualified immunity as to his First Amendment claims. Watkins does not dispute that both Finch and Wishnoff were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority when they acted to have him removed and banned from the park. As a result, to overcome qualified immunity, Watkins bears the burden to demonstrate that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, under the plaintiff’s account of disputed facts, their alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

DelPriore v. McClure · filed 2020-01-03

Accepting as true Mr. DelPriore’s factual account, the Court concludes that Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity because the conduct as alleged by Mr. DelPriore would have violated a clearly established right.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for retaliation against protected speech when that First Amendment right was clearly established.

Kathawa v. Friedman · filed 2020-01-06

Kathawa brings his First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows plaintiffs to bring actions against state actors for constitutional violations. ... And it was clearly established at the time actions were taken against Kathawa that the First Amendment bars retaliation for protected speech. ... Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the challenged conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Gwynn v. Sherwood · filed 2020-01-06

Considering the applicable caselaw, the Court concludes that Sherwood is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim against jail officers when the evidence supports a violation of a detainee’s clearly established right to care for known suicidal tendencies.

Downard v. Martin · filed 2020-01-06

The right of an individual to adequate medical attention and supervision when his or her “suicidal tendencies are known” is clearly established. Id. at 711. Defendants understood this right to be clearly established because their proffered reason for why Mr. Downard was moved to the C-Block is that he was the only inmate in the booking area who was not on suicide or medical watch.

Qualified immunity protects a government actor from a Section 1983 damages claim when the actor did not violate a federal right.

Christina Paylan, M.D. v. Teitelbaum · filed 2020-01-07

As a final point, we also agree with the district court’s separate conclusion that, because Paylan failed to establish the violation of a federal right, Teitelbaum is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have understood that their conduct was unlawful.

Candler v. Santa Rita Cty Jail Watch Cmdr · filed 2020-01-07

For Candler’s sanitation and medical-care claims, even if Candler could establish a constitutional violation, the district court correctly held that the grievance defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that it was unlawful to deny the grievances.

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

Bowles v. Filsinger Jr. · filed 2020-01-07

Because Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint has failed to establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, i.e., deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established in sufficiently similar circumstances.

Lee v. Potter · filed 2020-01-08

Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Lee has failed to meet his burden to show that the alleged right was clearly established, and Plaintiff’s rejects Mr. Lee’s generalized argument regarding reasonableness to overcome Officer Potter’s claim of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a jail officer from a Section 1983 claim when the officer disregards an inmate’s obvious serious medical needs in violation of a clearly established right.

Adkins v. Morgan Cty., Tenn. · filed 2020-01-08

Thus, we find that Adkins’s constitutional right to receive adequate medical care given the symptoms he exhibited was clearly established. ... For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

Hall v. Phillips · filed 2020-01-08

Because Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against an officer in his individual capacity are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot identify clearly established law prohibiting the officer’s conduct.

Sharkey v. Humphreys County, Mississippi · filed 2020-01-08

Even if such force could be deemed excessive, Sharkey has identified no clearly established law which would have placed Williams on notice that his conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, Williams is entitled to summary judgment on Sharkey’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on an individual-capacity § 1983 excessive-force claim when material facts about the officers’ conduct remain disputed.

Graves v. Gray · filed 2020-01-09

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage with respect to the February 19, 2016 use of force.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when existing law gives fair warning that using police authority to enforce a private debt violates clearly established rights.

Martin v. Howard · filed 2020-01-10

We conclude that our holding in Wright—that an officer exceeds the constitutional limits on his authority by attempting to enforce a private debt collection—was sufficient to put Howard on notice that his actions violated Martin’s clearly established rights.

Qualified immunity applies to § 1983 claims for money damages, not claims seeking only declaratory relief.

Apodaca-Fisk v. Allen · filed 2020-01-13

However, it is well established law in the Fifth Circuit that qualified immunity only extends to § 1983 claims for money damages.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established for the particular conduct at issue.

Korthals v. Cty. of Huron · filed 2020-01-13

Even if Deputy Strozeski’s failure to exercise caution when taking the drunken and handcuffed Korthals up the stairs were not merely negligent, but deliberately indifferent, such that it rose to the level of a constitutional violation, we cannot conclude that the constitutional impropriety of that particular conduct was clearly established. Deputy Strozeski is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

An official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged right was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Saenz v. Pelayo · filed 2020-01-13

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Pelayo on Saenz’s deliberate indifference claim on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official that requiring Saenz to remain outside of his cell and perform his assigned work was unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Arnold (ID 90705) v. Wichita, City of, Police Department · filed 2020-01-13

This means that qualified immunity applies and thus provides an alternative reason to dismiss the claims in the Complaint against defendants Berry and Pena.

A § 1983 plaintiff facing a qualified immunity defense must establish a violation of clearly established law and a genuine factual dispute about the reasonableness of the official’s conduct.

Tabor v. Goodwin · filed 2020-01-13

When a government official such as Malcolm asserts qualified immunity as a defense, the plaintiff is then responsible for rebutting that defense by establishing that the official’s alleged conduct violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness of the official’s conduct.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity for using less lethal force when no clearly established law gives fair warning that their conduct is unconstitutional.

Estate of J. Garcia Gaona, Jr. v. City of Santa Maria · filed 2020-01-14

The district court did not err in finding the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their use of less lethal force because no clearly established law provided “fair warning” that it was unconstitutional.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established under the specific circumstances.

Jack v. County of Stanislaus · filed 2020-01-14

In the absence of cases that are similar to the facts in this case, Pearson is entitled to qualified immunity because Jack’s right to be protected from harm by Davis under the circumstances of this case was not “clearly established.”

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Jurado v. Tritschler · filed 2020-01-14

For the same reason, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the law was clearly established that a seizure of him occurred under the circumstances here. Accordingly, Defendant Tritschler is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 excessive force suit, qualified immunity must be denied when the right was clearly established and disputed material facts could show the officer’s conduct was unreasonable.

Trujillo v. City of Hobbs · filed 2020-01-14

As a result of these findings, Defendants’ request that Officer Hopper be afforded qualified immunity must be denied.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an official protected by qualified immunity when the official’s conduct does not violate a clearly established federal right.

Picarella v. Brouse · filed 2020-01-14

Defendant Brouse simply could not have recognized that her actions in enforcing the prison contraband confiscation policy would violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wilson, 526 U.S. at 609. Therefore, defendant Brouse is protected from liability by qualified immunity.

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

DC v. Dallas Independent School District · filed 2020-01-14

By failing to demonstrate any evidence that Miles violated D.C.’s Fourth Amendment right, D.C. cannot satisfy his burden of raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Miles is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court need not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 retaliation claim based on refusing to process a prisoner’s grievance when a reasonable official would not have known that refusal violated the First Amendment.

Richey v. Aiyeku · filed 2020-01-15

We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Richey’s retaliation claim, and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Aiyeku on this claim.

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

Russett v. State of Arizona · filed 2020-01-15

We have never before recognized a state-created danger cause of action on facts analogous to the ones asserted by Appellees. Thus, it was not clearly established that Appellants’ conduct of assigning corrections officers to work with inmates under dangerous conditions would have violated Appellees’ due process rights and we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

A conclusory assertion of qualified immunity, without factual or legal support, does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage.

SMITH v. BIALIK · filed 2020-01-15

At this stage of the proceedings, however, the Court will decline to dismiss Plaintiffs claims on the basis of an essentially purely conclusory assertion of that doctrine, wholly devoid of any actual factual or legal support for its advancement. ... Accordingly, the Court will deny (without prejudice) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on such grounds.

Qualified immunity does not defeat a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that an official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

PB&J Towing Svc., I&II, LLC v. Hines · filed 2020-01-15

Qualified immunity does not protect Hines from PB&J Towing’s due process claim because PB&J Towing plausibly alleges that Hines violated its clearly-established due process rights.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer from an excessive force claim through qualified immunity when the force violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Cromartie v. Billings · filed 2020-01-16

Because Billings’ use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances and because it fails both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis at the motion to strike stage, the circuit court erred by granting the motion to strike on the § 1983 excessive force claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances.

Harper v. City of Merced · filed 2020-01-16

The Court has determined above that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which requires the Court to view the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, must be GRANTED and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 claims against parole officers may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds when the defense appears on the face of the complaint.

Rodriguez v. N.Y. State Dept. of Parole · filed 2020-01-17

First, as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims, the Court adopts Judge Cott’s recommendation that the claims be dismissed because Officers Ramos and Estwick are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law governs the challenged stop and frisk.

Smith v. City of Dalles · filed 2020-01-17

Officer Nagamatsu is not entitled to qualified immunity. All of the cases discussed above – Miles, Terry, Dickerson, and Mattarolo, chiefly – clearly establish the law that police officers must follow during a Terry stop and protective frisk.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when settled law does not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Goon v. Coleman · filed 2020-01-21

Thus, the court concludes that settled law does not “place the lawfulness of the particular [action] beyond debate,” which means that Officer Coleman is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when genuine factual disputes affect whether he violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Chestnut v. Officer Dawain Wallace · filed 2020-01-21

We agree with the district court1 that genuine issues of material fact preclude the officer from receiving qualified immunity at this stage.

Officers and paramedics are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful-restraint claim when the evidence shows they restrained a patient to provide emergency medical care, with no law-enforcement or punitive purpose.

Estate of Dustin Barnwell v. Grigsby · filed 2020-01-21

In our analysis of the defendants’ conduct pertaining to the restraint of Barnwell, there is no evidence or facts indicating that they acted in a law-enforcement role or with a punitive purpose, and Gilmore’s mere speculation is insufficient to create a genuine dispute and withstand summary judgment. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gilmore and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment was proper.

Section 1983 allows a claim against social workers whose alleged deception in a protective custody proceeding violates clearly established rights, defeating qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Williams v. County Of Monterey · filed 2020-01-21

The Court finds the facts alleged to be sufficient at the pleading stage. ... The motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Claim 6. This ruling is without prejudice to Moving Parties filing a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or conduct unreasonable under clearly established federal law.

Murdock v. Thompson · filed 2020-01-21

Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that Defendants violated any of his constitutional rights or that their actions were unreasonable in light of clearly established federal law, and therefore, Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when unresolved facts could show that an officer gratuitously stomped on a detainee’s foot.

Constantino v. DiStefano · filed 2020-01-21

For similar reasons, I cannot find qualified immunity. ... If this was a gratuitous stomp, qualified immunity seems unlikely. Interrogatories to the jury will answer these questions and enable a decision on qualified immunity with more precision than I can make on this motion.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that he shot a restrained dog posing no threat and the unlawfulness was clearly established.

Ray v. Roane · filed 2020-01-22

Thus, we hold that the district court erred in concluding Roane is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violated no constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

Fraley v. Spaventa · filed 2020-01-22

Defendants, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity if either their conduct did not violate any constitutional rights, or the right was not clearly established. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Here, Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient evidence that Defendants’ conduct violated any constitutional rights. As such, Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful detention claim if a reasonable officer could have found probable cause under the same circumstances and well-established law.

Salih Baker v. Fermon · filed 2020-01-23

But when a detention lacks probable cause, “arguable probable cause” will shield an officer from suit through qualified immunity if, under the same circumstances and well-established law, a reasonable officer could have found probable cause.

Qualified immunity protects officials sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities when they act within their discretionary authority and the plaintiff does not show a violation of clearly established law.

Adkisson v. Eubanks · filed 2020-01-23

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the federal claims against the defendants based on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical need.

Johnson v. Trowell · filed 2020-01-23

Accordingly, Defendant Stroma is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are protected by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or the violation of a clearly established right.

GROOMS HAULING, LLC v. ROBINSON · filed 2020-01-23

The evidence in this case creates no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendants met either prong of the qualified-immunity standard. ... Thus, the Defendants are protected by qualified immunity against Plaintiffs’ claims.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges they knew an arrest was based on a false report and knowingly gave false testimony to obtain a search warrant.

Wayne v. Lake Station City of · filed 2020-01-24

Based upon these allegations, the Court finds that the officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged use of force did not violate a clearly established right.

PEROZA-BENITEZ v. CITY OF READING · filed 2020-01-24

Consequently, Defendants Haser and White are entitled to qualified immunity.

A qualified-immunity defense in a Section 1983 action can support a temporary stay of discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending.

Lopez v. Gonzales · filed 2020-01-27

Here, the Defendant has raised the defense of qualified immunity in response to the operative complaint at an early stage of the litigation. ... Thus, in light of the foregoing and the governing case law cited herein, the Court concludes that a temporary stay of discovery as to the individual Defendant is appropriate in this matter, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable officer could have believed an investigatory stop was lawful.

HENDERSON v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS · filed 2020-01-27

What matters is whether Officer Baker had reason to believe, based on the information he had at the time of the stop, that the stop was lawful. Officer Baker did.

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

Jhagroo v. Brown (John Doe) · filed 2020-01-27

Accordingly, because there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether the events occurred as alleged by Plaintiff, Officer Brown is not entitled to summary judgment granting qualified immunity on the claim that he incited violence against Mr. Jhagroo, and neither Defendant is entitled to summary judgment granting qualified immunity on the claims that they failed to protect Mr. Jhagroo from violence.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim when the officer’s conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Trejo v. City of Omaha · filed 2020-01-28

“A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the official violated a plaintiff’s constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” ... Considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in Officer Riley’s position would conclude Trejo posed an immediate threat to his safety. Accordingly, the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable.

Section 1983 claims against state officials are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the officials violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Padilla v. Geico Insurance Co. · filed 2020-01-29

The Court therefore holds that the State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time.

Z.F. v. Adkins · filed 2020-01-29

I find that these two cases demonstrate that a middle school student posing no imminent risk of harm has a right to be free from excessive force, and that the right was clearly established when Adkins used force against Z.F. Accordingly, Adkins has not carried his burden to prove that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer violated clearly established law.

Washington v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2020-01-29

Washington has not shown that Olive violated clearly established law.

A government official sued individually under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Earle v. Birmingham Board of Education, The · filed 2020-01-29

Here, Earle and Evans fail at the first prong because they have not demonstrated that Herring violated their constitutional rights. ... The court concludes that Herring is entitled to qualified immunity for the claims against her in her individual capacity.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer with qualified immunity when he gives an inmate pills after being told the inmate would use them to attempt suicide, if those facts are proven.

Collins v. Webster · filed 2020-01-30

This circuit’s case law clearly establishes that Webster’s actions, if proven, would constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. ... Webster is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers receive qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when existing precedent did not clearly warn that their specific search was unconstitutional.

Hernandez v. Boles · filed 2020-01-30

At the time of these events, a reasonable officer would not have been on notice that the drug dog’s failure to alert again to the interior of the car was the kind of new information that dissipated the probable cause provided by its initial alert to the car exterior. This case provides such notice for future searches. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the Troopers.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer would have known that the alleged use of force could be unconstitutional.

Rosa v. City of Newberg · filed 2020-01-30

Rosa asserts that Officer Rapet’s takedown maneuver was unjustified under the circumstances, i.e., that there was no need for Officer Rapet to use such force, which gave Rosa a concussion. Officer Rapet is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Torbert v. Gore · filed 2020-01-31

Because Plaintiff cannot identify any case law or other authority in existence at the time of the incident that would have alerted Defendant to the illegality of his actions, Defendant Dailly is entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff who does not respond to a qualified immunity defense fails to meet the burden of overcoming that defense in a § 1983 claim.

Chavez v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Chaves · filed 2020-01-31

By failing to respond, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden with respect to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are protected by qualified immunity when the complaint does not allege a constitutional violation.

Lawson v. S.W.V.R.J.A. · filed 2020-02-03

Based on my finding that no constitutional violation has been alleged in the Amended Complaint against the defendants, I further find that the defendants are protected from liability in this case by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

On appeal from the denial of qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive-force suit, disputed facts must be viewed in the plaintiff’s favor.

Than Orn v. City of Tacoma · filed 2020-02-03

Orn sued Clark and the City of Tacoma under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force. Clark moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, ... and Clark has taken an interlocutory appeal from that order. We have jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine, see Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771–72 (2014), and now affirm. ... In an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity, we must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Police officers entitled to qualified immunity are protected from Section 1983 claims.

Huang v. Jalea Hill · filed 2020-02-03

Huang then filed this suit, pro se, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and Texas state law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. ... The court concluded that (1) Officers Kelemen and Dricks were entitled to qualified immunity, ... We affirm those judgments for the reasons stated by that court.

Section 1983 claims against officials are barred by qualified immunity when the official did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Mayhew v. Rubio · filed 2020-02-03

Because Defendant Rubio was not deliberately indifferent he did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Thus, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the defense depends on material outside the complaint.

Mendez v. Chang · filed 2020-02-04

Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO DISMISS Defendants’ motion for failure to state a claim based on qualified immunity because it is based on material outside the bounds of a 12(b)(6) motion.

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

Pickett v. City of Perryton, Texas · filed 2020-02-04

Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish both prongs of the qualified immunity test, they have failed to overcome Villarreal’s claim to qualified immunity. The Court therefore FINDS that Villarreal is entitled to qualified immunity, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED in its entirety.

Section 1983 permits a retaliatory inducement claim against an officer who induces another officer to issue a citation in response to protected speech; qualified immunity does not shield the officer when the right was clearly established.

Snoeyenbos v. Curtis · filed 2020-02-05

Ultimately, because the state of the law in January 2019 put Defendant on fair notice that her conduct violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, and after considering the policy reasons underlying the qualified immunity doctrine, the Court finds that qualified immunity does not shield Defendant from liability under Plaintiff's retaliatory inducement theory.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action cannot obtain dismissal on qualified immunity by explaining the doctrine only in broad terms without applying it to that defendant.

Adams v. Davis · filed 2020-02-05

The Court agrees with the Report and holds that Defendants are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.

An officer may have qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when he truthfully presents the facts and reasonably relies on a prosecutor’s advice and a neutral magistrate’s issuance of a warrant.

Shrewsbury v. Williams · filed 2020-02-06

A reasonable officer in his position would rely on the advice of the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the decision of the magistrate in issuing the warrants. Thus, the court finds that under the facts related to the dog theft warrants, Williams is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is a personal defense for the individual who faces potential liability under § 1983 to assert.

Glover v. Carr · filed 2020-02-06

As Dr. Holzmacher is not presently a party to the litigation, we decline to resolve the matter of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a personal defense, ... and because it is Dr. Holzmacher who potentially faces individual liability on Glover’s claim, the defense is one for him to assert.

A public official sued under § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation is entitled to qualified immunity when the law at the time did not clearly establish that the employee spoke as a citizen.

Gale Walker v. Smith · filed 2020-02-06

Because (1) the facts in Davis are inapposite to the case at hand, and (2) the record is devoid of evidence showing that Walker’s correspondence with the MBI was not an “official duty,” we hold that Smith is entitled to qualified immunity, as the law surrounding “citizen-versus-employee” speech was not clearly in Walker’s favor at the time of her firing.

A prison official sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity on summary judgment when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right.

Reed v. Roberts · filed 2020-02-06

The factual questions relevant to Officer Aiello’s use of force preclude the Court from finding that Lieutenant Roberts did not violate Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights or is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity for an official sued individually when the official would not have known the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Klaus v. County of Macoupin · filed 2020-02-06

To the extent any claims are directed against Sheriff Kahl in his individual capacity, the Court finds that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Based on the applicable case law and the undisputed facts in this case, Kahl would not have been aware that his conduct violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.

A factual dispute may make a qualified immunity decision on a § 1983 claim premature.

Payne v. Gordon · filed 2020-02-06

The Court finds that any decision on qualified immunity would be premature, and therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ request for dismissal of the conspiracy claims on the grounds of a qualified immunity defense.

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

Barton v. Officer Martin · filed 2020-02-07

Based on the facts alleged and the evidence produced, viewed in the light most favorable to Barton, a reasonable juror could find that Vann violated Barton’s Fourth Amendment rights to freedom from warrantless entry into his home, use of excessive force, and arrest without probable cause. These violations were of clearly established law. Vann, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity for all three federal claims.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against prison officials when the alleged unlawfulness of their conduct was not clear to every reasonable official.

Monical v. Towers · filed 2020-02-07

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Monical’s due process claim relating to the alleged misapplication of the Oregon Administrative Rules which resulted in defendants’ failure to credit properly Monical’s time spent in segregation at Jackson County Jail because defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when existing precedent did not clearly establish the asserted right at the time of the alleged misconduct.

MacKovski v. Bex · filed 2020-02-07

After a prior panel of this circuit reversed and remanded Aleksandar Mackovski’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for excessive force, Mackovski v. City of Garden Grove, 666 F. App’x 649, 653 (9th Cir. 2016), the district court ordered ... briefing on whether Officer Ray Bex was entitled to qualified immunity. ... We resolve this appeal on the “clearly established” prong. ... Therefore, Officer Bex is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Clark v. City of Boulder, Colorado · filed 2020-02-07

Officer Lolotai is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Clark’s excessive force claim because she failed to establish an unconstitutional seizure.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a § 1983 claim when they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Melnik v. Dzurenda · filed 2020-02-07

Because Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established, though limited, right to produce evidence at his disciplinary hearing, they are not entitled to qualified immunity in this case.

A corrections officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for physically sexually abusing an inmate after August 11, 2015, when persuasive circuit authority had clearly established the inmate’s Eighth Amendment right.

Ullery v. Bradley · filed 2020-02-10

Turning to the issue of whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances giving rise to this § 1983 action, we conclude his actions violated clearly established law. Specifically, the clearly established weight of persuasive authority in our sister circuits as of August 11, 2015, would have put any reasonable corrections officer in Defendant’s position on notice his alleged conduct would violate the Eighth Amendment. Because Plaintiff’s asserted right to be free from sexual abuse was clearly established at the relevant time, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 equal protection claim when the plaintiff cannot establish differential treatment of similarly situated people and intentional racial discrimination.

Buchanan v. Kelley · filed 2020-02-10

After careful review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, a de novo review of the record, and a review of the objections, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 50). ... His only remaining claim is that Mr. Warner and Mr. Dycus violated his equal protection rights, as protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by assigning him to a field utility job based on his race (Id.). ... Judge Volpe found that motion should be granted because Mr. Buchanan proved unable to defeat qualified immunity by showing that: (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated inmates and (2) the different treatment alleged was the result of intentional and purposeful racial discrimination (Dkt. No. 50, at 6-9).