42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

BROCK v. CORRECTIONS EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT) · filed 2020-02-10

As there is no case law to suggest that a reasonable official would understand that the destruction of Plaintiff’s artwork and art supplies might violate his First Amendment rights, I cannot find that Plaintiff possessed such a “clearly established” right. In turn, I find that Defendants Wetzel and Ferguson are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when no clearly established law required him to include facts supporting a suspect’s asserted self-defense in a warrant affidavit.

Turner, Sr. v. City of Lewisville, Texas · filed 2020-02-10

There is no clearly established law requiring Defendant Criswell to include the allegedly missing facts supporting Plaintiff’s claim of self-defense.

An officer sued under § 1983 must show that the challenged conduct fell within the scope of his discretionary authority before receiving qualified immunity.

Robinson v. Ash · filed 2020-02-11

“In order to receive qualified immunity, an official must first establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.” McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201, 1205 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). ... Ash has thus failed to show that he acted within the scope of his authority.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for deliberately exposing a prisoner to a known, easily avoided risk of violence.

Harris v. Molinero · filed 2020-02-11

Third, Molinero insists that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is uncertain. It is not: prison officials must not deliberately expose prisoners to known but easily avoided risks of violence from other prisoners.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when they reasonably but mistakenly believe probable cause supports an arrest or citation.

Rivera v. Town of Patagonia · filed 2020-02-11

Because a reasonable officer “could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests” and citations, see id. at 593, summary judgment was appropriate.

Conclusive and nonspecific allegations of deliberate indifference do not overcome qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Walker v. Corizon Health, Inc. · filed 2020-02-11

Following the Tenth Circuit’s guidance, the court holds that “the conclusory and nonspecific allegations set out in the complaint” fail to state “a viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against [Dr. Mohiuddin]” to “overcome an assertion of qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the facts do not show a violation of a constitutional right.

Stokes v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners · filed 2020-02-11

Consequently, the record does not demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right, and Officer Thompson is thus entitled to qualified immunity on Count I.

Qualified immunity bars damages under Section 1983 when the law did not clearly establish that the officials’ conduct violated a constitutional right.

Slaughter v. Bean · filed 2020-02-11

Assuming that constitutional violations occurred, the law was not clearly established that they constituted due process violations.

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

Bogus v. City of Birmingham, Alabama · filed 2020-02-12

The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to ... any § 1983 claim because Bogus has not shown that any of her constitutional rights were violated.

A Section 1983 claim cannot be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds at the pleading stage unless the complaint itself establishes that immunity applies.

Goff v. Juan Ramirez, Jr. · filed 2020-02-13

However, dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim is inappropriate because, based on the second amended complaint itself, we cannot determine that qualified immunity applies.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Molina v. Wise County Texas · filed 2020-02-14

Because Molina has not come forward with evidence to show that Defendant Thomas, Larson, or Roberts violated his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right, each Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit.

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

Jordan v. Howard · filed 2020-02-18

For these reasons, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment will be awarded to them on Plaintiff’s claim for Unconstitutional Seizure in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A jailer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for continuing a detention after an attempted posting of bond when the information available to her provides no arguable probable cause.

Alcocer v. Jailer Ashley Lynn Mills · filed 2020-02-20

Mills’s actions and inactions constituted a violation of Alcocer’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Therefore, Mills is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim against an officer bears the burden of rebutting a qualified immunity defense by showing that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

Keller v. Attala County · filed 2020-02-20

Plaintiffs bear the burden to rebut Deputy Fleming’s qualified immunity defense and demonstrate that there were Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights that were clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation.

In a § 1983 suit, a court may require a Rule 7(a) reply when the complaint lacks specific facts about each defendant’s conduct needed to address qualified immunity.

Jackson v. Valdez · filed 2020-02-20

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is lacking in specificity and particularity as to the conduct of each of the individual defendants and the facts she contends are sufficient to address their assertion of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officials from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law did not give them notice that their conduct violated a right.

Shannon v. Decker · filed 2020-02-21

Because the law prevailing at the time of the DIR administrators’ alleged misconduct did not clearly establish that the failure to update the actuarial tables violated Plaintiffs’ due process rights, the DIR administrators were entitled to qualified ... immunity.

Factual disputes about an officer’s use of force and the threat posed can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force claim.

Boyle v. Patridge · filed 2020-02-21

And because jury questions exist about the circumstances surrounding Patridge’s use of force and the potential threat Boyle posed, the Court cannot resolve the qualified immunity question in Patridge’s favor at this time.

The officers were entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claim when the plaintiff failed to show otherwise.

Morris v. City of Fort Worth, Texas · filed 2020-02-21

Plaintiff has not shown that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from a § 1983 claim when the complaint fails to allege a violation of the constitutional right on which the claim rests.

Taylor v. Clay County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-02-24

Accordingly, as Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court finds that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Count I to the extent it is based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity from a claim based on failure to treat erectile dysfunction when no clearly established right requires that treatment.

Tate v. Wiggins · filed 2020-02-24

Even assuming that Tate’s condition constitutes a serious medical need, we agree that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established right involved here.

Qualified immunity shields defendants from damages under § 1983 when the claimed constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Brummer 160622 v. Ryan · filed 2020-02-24

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages, and summary judgment will be granted to Defendants in their individual capacities.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when disputed facts prevent a determination of whether their conduct violated clearly established law.

Richardson v. Reno Police Department · filed 2020-02-24

The Court finds a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendants’ continued use of force after Plaintiff was on the ground was reasonable under the circumstances. ... Therefore, the Court denies summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claim against the officer on this record.

Carte-El v. Boyer · filed 2020-02-25

In summary, even assuming that the search a cross-gender search (which it was not), defendant is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity on the record in this case.

Police officers may obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit when the plaintiffs fail to plead a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Baeza v. Munro · filed 2020-02-25

The officers asserted qualified immunity and moved to dismiss the suit. Concluding the plaintiffs had failed to plead a violation of their clearly established constitutional rights, the district court granted the motion. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we agree with the district court’s determination and AFFIRM.

A Section 1983 plaintiff suing a government official bears the burden of overcoming the official’s qualified-immunity defense.

Greve v. Bass · filed 2020-02-25

The plaintiff in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against such an official bears the burden of overcoming the qualified-immunity defense.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have understood that the specific conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Art Tobias v. East · filed 2020-02-25

Because it would not have been apparent to any reasonable officer that the circumstances of this specific interrogation were unconstitutional, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Tobias’s claim that the officers violated his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Cunningham (ID 86780) v. Franklin County Jail · filed 2020-02-25

Because one of the elements Plaintiff must show to overcome a qualified immunity defense is a constitutional violation, and because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his constitutional rights have been violated, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Nelson v. City of Battle Creek, Mich. · filed 2020-02-26

We find, then, that N.K.’s right to be free from excessive force under these circumstances was not clearly established. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for the entry of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

A superintendent has qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim when the law did not clearly establish liability for an official who recommended, but did not make, the final employment decision.

Powers v. Northside Independent Sch Dis · filed 2020-02-26

As superintendent, Woods is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that Woods’ actions violated clearly established constitutional law. ... When Powers and Wernli were terminated in April 2014, the inconsistency in our law as to whether First Amendment liability can attach to a public official who did not ... make the final employment decision had not yet been resolved. ... Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Woods based on qualified immunity.

Municipal defendants cannot claim qualified immunity in a § 1983 action, and individual defendants’ assertion of that defense does not automatically stay discovery.

Sanchez v. City and County of Denver Colorado · filed 2020-02-26

Thus, I find that the invocation of qualified immunity by the Individual Denver Defendants, in and of itself, does not warrant a stay of discovery given that the Denver Health Defendants do not, on their own accord, seek to stay discovery and that qualified immunity does not apply to either the City or Denver Health.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Tygrett v. City and County of Denver a/k/a Denver Water · filed 2020-02-26

Because Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible equal protection claim against Defendant Roode, he fails to carry his burden under the first prong of qualified immunity. Therefore, Defendant Roode is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's sole claim against him.

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

Jackson v. Williams · filed 2020-02-26

Hence, since there was no right clearly established at the time of the alleged use of excessive force against Plaintiff, Amerosa is entitled to qualified immunity. And because Amerosa is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against him for excessive force.

A Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim against correction officers may survive summary judgment despite a qualified immunity defense.

Liverpool v. Davis · filed 2020-02-26

But Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against the remaining defendants survives summary judgment and will not be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 claims against a public official in her individual capacity are barred by qualified immunity when her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Michigan Interlock, LLC v. Alcohol Detection Sys., LLC · filed 2020-02-28

Second, Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity for the individual capacity claims because her conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established.

Qualified immunity does not apply when no individual-capacity § 1983 claim has been asserted against the defendant.

McNeil v. Cmty. Prob. Servs. · filed 2020-02-28

All in all, the plaintiffs have not filed individual-capacity § 1983 claims against the company or McNair. No qualified-immunity defense thus applies to them for such claims.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a reasonable juror could find that an officer violated a clearly established right.

HUSPON v. ZATECKY · filed 2020-02-28

Because Mr. Huspon alleges a violation of a clearly established right and a reasonable juror could find that Officer Talley knowingly disregarded an excessive risk of harm, Officer Talley is not entitled to summary judgment.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Rhodes v. State of Michigan · filed 2020-02-28

But when the doctrine of qualified immunity is invoked, in order to overcome it Plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established that Jones’ conduct would amount to constitutionally-actionable deliberate indifference.

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

Melnik v. Aranas · filed 2020-02-28

Accordingly, Melnik has not met his burden to show that his Eighth Amendment right to prison medical treatment was “clearly established” at the relevant time. Dr. Aranas is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Melnik’s single cause of action, and as such, the court will grant Dr. Aranas’s motion for summary judgment.

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

Cheesman v. Ellensburg, City of · filed 2020-03-02

Where the defense of qualified immunity is at issue, the Court applies a two-part inquiry to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. ... As such, Defendant Jim Weed is entitled to qualified immunity on the claims asserted against him by Plaintiffs.

Qualified immunity may apply to an individual-capacity § 1983 claim for damages alleging a First Amendment violation.

Blair v. Raemisch · filed 2020-03-02

We note, however, that qualified immunity is not a defense to Blair’s RLUIPA claim against Defendant Raemisch, and thus is only relevant to his First Amendment free exercise claim against Defendants Crockett, Richard, and Offrelig.

Section 1983 affords child welfare workers qualified immunity from claims by a sibling who suffered no direct injury when no clearly established law supports liability.

J.P. v. County of Alameda · filed 2020-03-02

Because no law clearly established that child welfare workers could be liable to a sibling who suffered no direct injury as a result of a state-created danger or special relationship, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim for a detainee body cavity search that is vindictive or harassing rather than related to a legitimate penological interest.

Steward v. County of Santa Clara · filed 2020-03-02

For the same reasons, accepting plaintiff’s version of events as true, the Court finds that West is not entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim because it has been long established that body cavity searches of detainees must be related to a legitimate penological interest and not vindictive or harassing.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that he deliberately or recklessly made material misrepresentations or omissions to obtain an arrest warrant, in violation of clearly established law.

Jackson v. Carin · filed 2020-03-02

As explained above, according to the facts alleged, a reasonable trier of fact may find that Detective Carin deliberately, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made material misrepresentations and omissions in the Application for Jackson’s arrest warrant. He is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity.

McCullock v. Brown · filed 2020-03-03

The Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly determined that summary judgment in Defendant Brown’s favor is appropriate on the merits of Plaintiffs claims and that Defendant Brown is entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

STARK v. RUTHEFORD · filed 2020-03-03

Qualified immunity protects public officials like these Defendants from civil liability under § 1983 unless the official’s conduct violated “a clearly established” constitutional right. ... Without a specific case establishing that these actions by the DNR officers constitute violations of one’s Fourth Amendment rights, we cannot find that Defendants violated a clearly established right.

Once an officer establishes discretionary authority, a plaintiff must show both a constitutional violation and a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Moore v. Gwinnett County · filed 2020-03-04

A plaintiff ... demonstrates that qualified immunity does not apply by showing “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) [the] right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Whittier, 581 F.3d at 1308. ... Accordingly, after examining the record in the light most favorable to Moore, we find that Moore has not met her burden of showing that the officers used excessive force in violation of her constitutional rights.

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

Stanton v. Joyner · filed 2020-03-04

Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to allege Defendants did not take reasonable measures to guarantee his safety when they allowed Plaintiff, an inmate in protective custody, to recreate with other non-similarly classified inmates (including one known to be “disruptive” who was serving disciplinary time), in groups larger than allowed by prison policy, while Plaintiff was restrained to a greater degree than the inmate who attacked him. Accordingly, Defendants have not shown they are entitled to qualified immunity based on the pleadings.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation or a violation of a clearly established right.

Cantrell v. McClure · filed 2020-03-05

Based upon the uncontroverted video evidence, and taking Cantrell’s allegations as true, we conclude that McClure is entitled to qualified immunity, as Cantrell has failed to meet his burden on either count.

Section 1983 damages claims against prison officials are barred by qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Littler v. Amber Wallace · filed 2020-03-05

But qualified immunity shields prison officials from liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. ... Therefore, the district court properly concluded that Watkins had qualified immunity with respect to his claim for damages.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Keyonte Ashford, Sr. v. Raby · filed 2020-03-05

In the end, nothing about Raby’s use of Ruger to seize Ashford violated clearly established law. Thus, Raby is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Hipes v. Judge · filed 2020-03-05

As such, Gault is entitled to qualified immunity from liability for Hipes’ § 1983 claims of false arrest and continued prosecution.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an officer protected by qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

FAGRE v. PARKS · filed 2020-03-05

In all, I find that the conflicting lines of case law, and the First Circuit’s continued reliance on the rule announced in Landol-Rivera insulate Trooper Parks from liability under a qualified immunity analysis. Even if he violated Ms. Fagre’s Fourth Amendment rights, I find he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count One on qualified immunity grounds as well.

An officer facing a § 1983 claim for an unlawful stop is entitled to qualified immunity when the officer had arguable reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Thompson v. Hernandez · filed 2020-03-05

While it is likely that this observation and the circumstances of the transaction rose to the level of reasonable suspicion, it certainly rose to the much lower level of arguable reasonable suspicion. ... Thus, Hernandez is entitled to qualified immunity for the stops.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.

Harmon v. Dunlap · filed 2020-03-05

Harmon’s first cause of action is therefore dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates clearly established law.

Canada v. Beitler · filed 2020-03-06

As to this issue, the district court properly concluded that appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity on Canada’s failure-to- protect claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 for false arrest is entitled to qualified immunity if the officer had arguable probable cause to arrest for any offense.

Junkins v. Dejong · filed 2020-03-06

Officer Dejong is correct; so long as he had arguable cause to arrest for any offense, qualified immunity will apply.

Qualified immunity protects a municipal legal adviser from damages under Section 1983 when no clearly established law required him to intervene in a town manager’s enforcement action.

Norton v. Galligan · filed 2020-03-06

In the absence of clearly established law, Mr. Yagaloff is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 claim, qualified immunity applies when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation; the court need not decide whether the right was clearly established.

Butler v. Caldwell · filed 2020-03-06

Qualified immunity claims require a two-step analysis. ... Because Plaintiff has not set forth a violation of his constitutional rights, the court need not reach step two of the analysis. Plaintiff’s objection fails.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the force was objectively excessive or clearly unreasonable.

Richardson v. University of Texas Systems · filed 2020-03-09

Because Plaintiff has failed to show Callahan’s use of force was objectively excessive or clearly unreasonable, Callahan is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

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

Fijalkowski v. M. Wheeler · filed 2020-03-09

We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal on qualified immunity grounds of Fijalkowski’s substantive due process claim.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at the pleading stage when the alleged force was obviously unreasonable, even without a prior case directly on point.

Savales v. Waters · filed 2020-03-09

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, despite no case directly on point, Cater’s alleged actions were obviously unreasonable.

In a Section 1983 excessive force claim, officers lack qualified immunity when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, they use significant force against a subdued, passively resisting suspect.

Comandella v. Town of Munster · filed 2020-03-09

However, it is clearly established law that (1) a suspect who disobeys a verbal command is engaged in “passive resistance”; (2) officers cannot use “significant force” on a passively resisting suspect; (3) even if significant force was previously justified, an officer may not continue to use significant force once a suspect is subdued. See supra, p. 10-12. Therefore, assuming Plaintiff’s version of the facts for purposes of this motion, qualified immunity is not a defense for Ayersman or Wells.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim depends on each officer’s conduct and whether that conduct violated a clearly established right.

Lucero v. City of Clovis Police Department · filed 2020-03-09

Defendant Aguilar was the officer who handled PSD Leo, released PSD Leo to attack Mr. Lucero, “aggressed” Leo to further attack Mr. Lucero, and ultimately told Leo to release Mr. Lucero. Therefore, denial of qualified immunity as to Count I is only appropriate as to Defendant Aguilar.

Qualified immunity does not shield a defendant from a § 1983 claim when the right allegedly violated was clearly established before the challenged conduct.

Houston v. Coveny · filed 2020-03-09

Furthermore, Crawford II makes clear that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity because the Second Circuit’s August 11, 2015 decision in Crawford I was issued prior to the September 22, 2015 incident that gives rise to Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violations. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established federal right.

Locke v. Schmidt · filed 2020-03-10

Officials “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012)). ... As Locke has not established that the conditions of his confinement violated the Constitution, he cannot show that Defendants were acting without qualified immunity.

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

Ocasio v. Ciach · filed 2020-03-10

Because we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity, we will vacate the District Court’s order to the extent that it denied the motion for summary judgment as to the claims against Appellants and will remand with instructions for the District Court to grant the summary judgment motion as to those claims (without prejudice to any rights or remedies Ocasio may possess under state law).

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Arellano, Jr. v. Dean · filed 2020-03-10

Upon reconsideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Dean was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that this violation was clearly established making qualified immunity inappropriate.

Section 1983 allows an excessive force claim against an officer to proceed when the alleged force was objectively unreasonable and the right was clearly established.

Eddie v. City of Whiteville · filed 2020-03-10

In assessing qualified immunity, courts employ a two-part test that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” ... Addressing the second prong of the test first, it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the force employed to effectuate an arrest must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that the force employed by Atkinson was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. ... Given the evidence, it is clear that genuine issues of material fact exist and Atkinson is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim against corrections officers who had fair warning that ignoring a serious risk to a shackled prisoner's safety during transport was unlawful.

WILLIAMS v. WHITAKER · filed 2020-03-10

Clearly, neither Valko nor Whitaker is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’ s Section 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.

Valdez v. Beard · filed 2020-03-11

Furthermore, the district court did not err in dismissing Valdez’s due process claims regarding the ICC hearings prior to April 2014 on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that a failure to provide post-placement periodic, meaningful reviews violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, material factual disputes can prevent officers from obtaining qualified immunity on summary judgment when a jury could find that they violated a clearly established right.

Amador v. Bexar County · filed 2020-03-11

We find that if a jury accepts Plaintiffs’ version of the facts as true, particularly as to what occurred in the moments before the deputies shot Flores, the jury could conclude that the officers violated Flores’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force.

Officials sued under § 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Sullivan v. Brewer · filed 2020-03-11

Viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that a reasonable person could find the actions of the defendants deliberately indifferent. At this stage of the litigation, defendants have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs allegations of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against prison officials are subject to qualified immunity when the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

LaVergne v. Vaughn · filed 2020-03-12

First, LaVergne has not shown that the “mail block” violated clearly established law. See McCreary, 738 F.3d at 655-56. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity with respect to his constitutional challenges to the mail block.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed material facts determine whether the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Casey v. Sanders · filed 2020-03-13

However, the law provides government officials with qualified immunity from § 1983 claims. ... Just as the Court rejects, at this stage, Defendant’s claim for qualified immunity under federal law, it makes the same finding as to qualified immunity under Kentucky state law.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections · filed 2020-03-13

Accordingly, even if Norton has sufficiently alleged a First Amendment claim against the CCBOE defendants, the CCBOE defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity from damages when the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Ohlson v. Brady-Morris · filed 2020-03-16

Nevertheless, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, which “protects 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when probable cause supported the prosecution.

Penn v. Bergtold · filed 2020-03-17

Accordingly, because there was probable cause to prosecute Penn, his malicious prosecution claim fails. ... Bergtold is therefore entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not protect defendants from a § 1983 claim when the complaint states a claim for deliberate indifference.

Zink v. Colobani · filed 2020-03-17

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

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Parks v. Oklahoma County · filed 2020-03-17

For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability on Plaintiff's claim of excessive in-cell time alleged in Count II of the Complaint.

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

Walker v. Johnson · filed 2020-03-18

For all of these reasons, the court concludes that Walker’s harassment claim under § 1983 is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

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

HARLEY v. CITY OF WOODBURY · filed 2020-03-18

Consequently, even if Defendant’s conduct did violate the Constitution, he remains entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that a reasonable officer would have understood her conduct violated a clearly established right.

Sisson v. Piedmont Regional Jail Authority · filed 2020-03-19

Therefore, at this juncture, Defendant Baker is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 false arrest claim must go to the jury when disputed facts determine whether the arresting officer acted reasonably.

Battle v. Parr · filed 2020-03-19

Battle asserts a claim of false arrest against Parr under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Accordingly, the jury must find the facts to determine whether Parr is entitled to qualified immunity on Battle’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their use of force violates no constitutional right, without reaching whether the right was clearly established.

Estate of Deandre Bethea v. Howser · filed 2020-03-20

Since the Court finds that the use of force by Craighill and Howser did not violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, it need not address the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot identify clearly established law that would have put them on notice that their conduct violated a federal right.

Bistryski v. DOC Health Services of Stafford Creek Corrections Center · filed 2020-03-20

Moreover, as stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the eighth amendment claim.

In Section 1983 damages actions, officers have qualified immunity unless their conduct violates a clearly established federal right.

Baker v. Hayden · filed 2020-03-20

Even if we were mistaken in finding no Fourth Amendment violations and the officers actually made a constitutionally impermissible search or seizure of Baker's property, they would, nonetheless, be entitled to qualified immunity on the claim. ... The immunity applies in § 1983 actions unless the government agents have violated "a federal statutory or constitutional right" and the wrongfulness of their conduct was "'clearly established at the time'" they acted.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the facts show no constitutional violation and the asserted right was not clearly established.

Jackson v. LaPorte County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-03-20

Officer Hynek is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Jackson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S.Ct. at 2044; Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d at 667.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action cannot be resolved before trial when material facts bearing on the defense are disputed.

Anderson v. Furst · filed 2020-03-20

The Court cannot decide whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged assaults on Anderson because his claims turn on disputed questions of fact.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s supported account shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Nowlin v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2020-03-20

Since Plaintiff has satisfied her burden at this stage of the litigation, Officers Castlebury and Grimes are not entitled to qualified immunity, so the Court must proceed to analyzing the summary judgment motion under the typical Rule 56 standards.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleadings stage when unresolved facts determine whether the alleged retaliation violated clearly established First Amendment rights.

Thaxter v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee · filed 2020-03-20

At this juncture, then, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity supports summary judgment on a § 1983 medical care claim when the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.

Nickleberry v. Geddes · filed 2020-03-21

As a result, the the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity should be granted.

A § 1983 plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must plead specific facts about each official’s conduct; allegations that do not identify the responsible official are insufficient.

Robertson v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2020-03-23

As for the remaining allegations which Plaintiff does not clarify, specifically the apology tour, the allegations that Defendants were manufacturing a pretext to fire her, and the denial of her leave requests, these are not pleaded with sufficient factual specificity to overcome qualified immunity and will not be considered.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful entry claim when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Salem v. City of Akron · filed 2020-03-23

Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ unlawful entry claim set forth in Count III.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Shakir v. Stankye · filed 2020-03-24

Our determination that Stankye did not violate a clearly established right provides a sufficient basis to conclude that Stankye is entitled to summary judgment based on his qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Oliver v. Nielsen · filed 2020-03-24

The district court correctly determined that qualified immunity barred Oliver’s unlawful arrest claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have known their conduct was unlawful.

Lopez v. Holler · filed 2020-03-24

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful.

A plaintiff who fails to respond to a qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim fails to meet the burden to negate that defense.

C. v. Round Rock Independent School District · filed 2020-03-25

In failing to respond to Proctor’s grounds for dismissal of the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to negate Proctor’s qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against officials when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Brown v. Wakeman · filed 2020-03-25

Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R on qualified immunity grounds as to both the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates a clearly established right that reasonable officers would have recognized.

(PC) Caruso v. Johnson · filed 2020-03-25

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) the officers violate a federal a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly established at the time.” ... The Court concludes that the law was sufficiently settled that reasonable officers in Defendants’ positions would have known that their conduct was violating Caruso’s Eighth Amendment rights. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 5; Vos, 892 F.3d at 1035. Qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a prison doctor when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation, but does not shield conduct that may violate a clearly established right.

Monfiston v. Wetterer · filed 2020-03-25

The Court thus denies Dr. Wetterer’s qualified immunity defense on his pre- surgery conduct.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action may obtain summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Kitchen 189265 v. Snyder · filed 2020-03-26

Regardless, on the Court’s review of the record, the R&R properly determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

An individual official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

South Allegheny Pittsburgh v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2020-03-27

Therefore, we affirm the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity and dismissal of all claims against Mariani.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim seeking only injunctive relief.

Madsen v. City of Phoenix · filed 2020-03-27

Thus, Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity is not applicable to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when the officer’s alleged violation of constitutional rights was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Wilson v. City of Springfield · filed 2020-03-27

Plaintiff has met her burden in showing that the constitutional right that Wangard is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time Wangard made statements about Steven Wells. Therefore, Wangard is not entitled to qualified immunity on Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

In a § 1983 suit, factual disputes do not defeat an officer’s qualified immunity when they do not affect the reasonableness of the officer’s use of force.

Smith v. Town of Lloyd · filed 2020-03-27

Thus, to the extent there are factual disputes on either prong of the qualified immunity analysis, they are not material because they do not “implicate the reasonableness of the [Riley’s] use of force.” Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 1999).

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

Schulkers v. Kammer · filed 2020-03-30

For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying qualified immunity to Defendants Kammer and Campbell from suit on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims because the law governing in-school interviews by social workers was not yet clearly established at the time of Defendants’ conduct.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on officers when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Turpin v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-03-30

For the reasons set forth in the following section, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment right to substantive due process on qualified immunity grounds.

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

Dawson v. Coleman · filed 2020-03-30

In light of Howard, this Court concludes that the unconstitutionality of the conduct Mr. Dawson alleges here was “clearly established” by 2018, such that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a Section 1983 retaliation claim for a prisoner’s efforts to obtain declarations supporting a lawsuit when those efforts are consistent with prison discipline.

Minerly v. Holt · filed 2020-03-30

Therefore, qualified immunity is not available to Dr. Holt and Kirschke on the record as it stands.

Government officials sued for damages under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Ostergren v. Frick · filed 2020-03-30

Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis—whether the right was clearly established—the foregoing discussion amply demonstrates that it was not sufficiently clear to Defendants that a valid nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement constituted an improper prior restraint.

In a § 1983 action, discovery may be stayed while a government defendant’s qualified immunity defense is resolved.

Simms v. Sinclair · filed 2019-11-08

When government officials raise the issue of qualified immunity, the Supreme Court has held that discovery should not proceed until the threshold issue of immunity has been resolved.

Once officials assert qualified immunity against a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiffs bear the burden of showing why the officials are not entitled to it.

Miller v. City of Leland · filed 2020-03-31

As the movants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity, the burden is now on the plaintiffs to demonstrate why the movants should not be entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable official would not have understood that the challenged conduct violated clearly established law.

Cruz v. Decker · filed 2020-03-31

A reasonable official would not have clearly understood that his failure to have the tables reviewed, adjusted, and adopted as regulation on the effective date of the statute was a statutory or constitutional violation. And because each of the plaintiffs’ theories stems solely from Decker’s alleged failure to update the tables on February 16, 2017, or alternatively on July 1, 2017, he is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ entire action.

Officers facing a Section 1983 false arrest claim are entitled to qualified immunity if they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Lowe v. New York City · filed 2020-03-31

In any event, there was at a minimum arguable probable cause for the arrest, and the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 provides qualified immunity from damages when a reasonable official would not have understood that the challenged conduct violated a constitutional right.

Obataiye-Allah v. Steward · filed 2020-03-31

Accordingly, they are, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s constitutional claims for damages.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages when they could not reasonably have known their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Stroman v. Pennsylvania Dept. Of Corrections · filed 2020-03-31

Therefore, defendants are protected from liability by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects defendants sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 when their alleged conduct violates no clearly established constitutional right.

Canada v. Stirling · filed 2020-03-31

Finally, even if a constitutional violation occurred, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis for claims made against them in their individual capacity in that there is no established law that clearly defines the conduct of Defendants, as alleged, as a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to a prison dentist for deliberate indifference to serious dental pain when the right to be free from that pain is clearly established.

Gaffney v. Perelmuter · filed 2020-04-01

Finally, Perelmuter would not be entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, because the right to be free from serious dental pain is clearly established.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law would have put the official on notice that the alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Williams v. Cooper · filed 2020-04-01

Thus, Ochs should have been on notice that his conduct in both incidents – if they occurred – were violations of the Eighth Amendment. Qualified immunity does not apply here.

Qualified immunity protects defendants from a Section 1983 damages claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Goldring v. Davidson · filed 2020-04-01

Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 for excessive force may assert qualified immunity, but the defense did not entitle these officers to summary judgment.

Cunningham v. Shelby County, TN · filed 2020-04-01

In the next sections, the Court will address Defendants’ qualified immunity argument. And for the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law did not put the officer on notice that the conduct was unlawful.

L. T. v. Smyrna Police Lt. Kenneth Owens · filed 2020-04-02

In sum, Plaintiffs have not shown that clearly established law put Owens on notice that his conduct was unlawful. Owens is therefore entitled to qualified immunity even assuming he violated Thomas’s constitutional rights.

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

MCLEOD v. DUKES · filed 2020-04-02

Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating a violation of a constitutional right. The undisputed facts show that the search warrant authorizing the search of Plaintiff’s property and the seizure of the dogs was supported by probable cause, and the ensuing search of Plaintiff’s property was reasonable. Defendants accordingly are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their use of force was clearly excessive or clearly unreasonable.

Shefeik v. Goliad County · filed 2020-04-03

Because the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendants’ use of force was clearly excessive or clearly unreasonable, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law prohibited their conduct at the time.

Pierre v. Padgett · filed 2020-04-03

Yet, having credited the testimony of the officers at the bench trial that Plaintiff had continued to kick and flail, refusing to obey the officers’ directives to cease, the district court noted that there was no law clearly establishing that the use of spray at this point would have constituted excessive force. Accordingly, qualified immunity applied. We agree with the district court’s determination on this point as well.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that officials had fair warning their conduct violated established rights.

Gradetech, Inc. v. City of San Jose · filed 2020-04-03

Under only Plaintiffs’ facts and with no additional factual development, then, qualified immunity does not apply.

Qualified immunity shields a government officer from Section 1983 liability when the officer did not violate a constitutional right.

Copeland v. Bannock County, Idaho · filed 2020-04-03

Qualified immunity shields government actors, such as police officers, from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... As set forth above, Copeland fails to allege colorable federal constitutional claims in each respect. As such, the claims against Sellers also fail as a matter of law and the Court will grant Sellers’s motion for summary judgment as to Copeland’s federal claims.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer who enters a home behind another officer without knowing that the other officer may lack consent to enter.

Young v. Lacy · filed 2020-04-06

Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity for his entry into the residence because he followed Sommers into the residence, not knowing that Sommers may not actually have had consent to enter.

An officer facing a § 1983 unlawful-arrest claim has qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Montgomery v. Valandra · filed 2020-04-06

The Court agrees with the recommendation that, even if this is a mistaken application of the ordinance, such a mistake would not defeat qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could believe that the ordinance applied to where David was standing.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officers who could reasonably believe a search warrant was valid, even when its affidavit lacked probable cause.

HILL v. DEWEY · filed 2020-04-06

Therefore, qualified immunity applies to bar Plaintiffs’ claims.

A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff’s account of disputed facts shows a violation of clearly established law.

Sutton v. Dunklin County Jail · filed 2020-04-06

When viewed in a light most favorable to Sutton, the facts alleged by Sutton constitute a violation of clearly established law. Wheeler’s claim of qualified immunity is denied.

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their conduct complied with clearly established law.

Isaac v. City of New York · filed 2020-04-06

As officers are expected to enforce the clearly established law as it existed at the time of the arrest, the court finds that qualified immunity clearly applies here and further shields defendants from plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution.

Officials sued personally under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the allegations do not show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

RAHMAN v. BOROUGH OF GLENOLDEN · filed 2020-04-06

The individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their personal capacities in relationship to the enforcement of Chapter 61. The facts as alleged do not establish that individual Defendants knowingly violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Officers sued under § 1983 for excessive force are not entitled to qualified immunity when a jury could find that they shot an unarmed person who was surrendering and posed no immediate threat.

Smith v. City of Milwaukee · filed 2020-04-07

Because a jury could find that the officers did not have probable cause to ... 9 ... believe that Smith had put them or others in imminent danger, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have understood that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Johnson, Jr. v. Maguire Correctional Facility · filed 2020-04-08

Moreover, even if there was a triable issue whether Johnson’s placement in administrative segregation violated his right to due process, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it cannot be said that any reasonable officer would have understood that by following jail policies and procedures for placement in non-disciplinary administrative segregation she was violating Johnson’s due process rights.

An officer may have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when it was objectively reasonable to believe his conduct was lawful or he had arguable probable cause for an arrest.

Sharkany v. Bryce · filed 2020-04-08

Officer Bryce is also entitled to qualified immunity from liability on the Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials are subject to qualified immunity when the officials did not violate a constitutional right.

Woods v. Town of Tonawanda · filed 2020-04-08

Since this Court first considered the substantive merits of plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ defenses on the constitutional question (namely deliberate indifference to Decedent’s welfare), cf. Pearson, supra, 555 U.S. at 236, and found that no constitutional violation has occurred, the individual defendants enjoy qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability under Section 1983 when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a constitutional right.

Strassell v. Norris · filed 2020-04-09

The Court finds that neither Deputy Norris’ handcuff force nor arrest force amounted to a constitutional violation, and as a result, Deputy Norris is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable officer would not have known that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Schenke v. Lehman · filed 2020-04-09

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity regarding their seizure of Schenke’s firearms.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity from an unlawful-entry damages claim when their entry is constitutional under the community caretaking exception.

Castagna v. Jean · filed 2020-04-10

Edwards, Jean, and Kaplan were entitled to qualified immunity for the unlawful entry claim under a community caretaking theory.

A prison official has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that the official’s conduct was unlawful.

De Cruz v. Panizza · filed 2020-04-13

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Panizza on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official in 2015 that inspecting, outside of de Cruz’s presence, a stored box containing de Cruz’s legal materials was unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 claim when a clearly established right would have made the unlawfulness of their conduct apparent to every reasonable officer.

Nesmith v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-04-13

Although we conclude that the Deputies have made enough of a “distinct legal claim” to avoid waiving their challenge to whether NeSmith’s rights were clearly established, see id., we nevertheless hold that they were. ... “Every ‘reasonable official would [have understood]’” that failing to recognize that risk violated NeSmith’s rights.

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

Maples v. Pinal, County of · filed 2020-04-13

And without a clearly established right, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity applies to individual capacity claims for monetary damages, but not to official capacity claims or claims for injunctive, declaratory, or mandamus relief.

Halik v. Brown · filed 2020-04-13

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

Qualified immunity may be denied on a § 1983 retaliation claim when a prison official’s comment could be construed as a threat against a prisoner for filing grievances, in violation of a clearly established right.

(PC) Penton v. Hubard · filed 2020-04-14

Such a comment would infringe upon Plaintiff’s clearly established right to be free from retaliation for filing prison grievances. Accordingly, Defendants’ objection is overruled.

Qualified immunity protects an official from damages under Section 1983 when the challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Lee v. Driscoll · filed 2020-04-14

Setting that aside, the allegations in the Complaint, when construed in a light most favorable to Lee, do not demonstrate that Gardner violated a right that was clearly established at the time of his inspections. ... As a result, Gardner is entitled to qualified immunity as to Count Two.

State officers sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when they act within their discretionary authority unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Doe v. Investigator Cheryl Smith · filed 2020-04-15

State actors sued under section 1983 enjoy the protections of qualified immunity. When an officer acts “within the scope of her discretionary authority at the time of the alleged misconduct,” the officer can be held liable only if the plaintiff establishes that the officer “violated a federal statutory or constitutional right” and “the unlawfulness of [the officer’s] conduct was clearly established at the time.”

Officials sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when an inmate alleges they knowingly housed him contrary to a medical restriction.

(PC) Bradford v. Usher · filed 2020-04-15

In this instance, Plaintiff is not merely alleging that he was at a heightened risk of Valley Fever, but that in housing him at KVSP the defendants disregarded his medical chrono stating that he was ineligible to be housed in an endemic area. ... For this reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is denied.

Qualified immunity in § 1983 actions applies only to individual-capacity claims for damages, not claims for declaratory or injunctive relief or official-capacity claims.

Sexton v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2020-04-15

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

In a § 1983 suit, once officials establish that they acted within their discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing qualified immunity does not apply.

Parfitt v. Florida Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees · filed 2020-04-15

Parfitt does not dispute the Individuals were all acting within their discretionary authority. So the burden shifts for Parfitt to show qualified immunity is improper.