42 U.S.C. § 1983

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim when their use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Tennyson v. Harris County Texas · filed 2020-04-16

The Officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to Tennyson’s excessive force claim.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established in the specific circumstances they faced.

Bentley v. Arizona Department of Child Safety · filed 2020-04-16

Applying the Supreme Court’s “clearly established” standard, as discussed above and as illustrated by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kirkpatrick, the Court concludes that the unlawfulness of the City and State Defendants’ conduct as alleged in Counts 3-7 was not clearly established at the time of the events in this case. Defendants are therefore protected by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield prison dietary managers from a Section 1983 claim for failing to provide a medically appropriate diet when the right to that diet was clearly established.

Todd v. Wexford Health Care · filed 2020-04-20

Finally, the Court finds that Defendants Fisher and Harris are not entitled to qualified immunity. In 2014, it was clearly established that inmates had a right to a medically appropriate diet, including those with diabetes.

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have understood their conduct to violate a clearly established right.

Forter v. Young · filed 2020-04-20

Furthermore, it would not have been clear to reasonable officials in defendants’ positions that serving a largely kosher vegetarian diet or responding to plaintiff’s grievance requests in the manner set forth above would violate the First Amendment. Accordingly, even if defendants had ... violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, qualified immunity would nonetheless attach to plaintiff’s claim for damages.

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

James v. New Jersey State Police · filed 2020-04-21

Trooper Bartelt is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Gibbons’s clearly established rights.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when existing law gave fair warning that the alleged use of force was unlawful.

Hartsell v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-04-21

Moreover, preexisting law gave Stroh fair warning that it would be unlawful to use a canine in a prolonged manner under circumstances such as those alleged by Hartsell. ... Accordingly, the district court properly denied qualified immunity in part.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of their conduct would not have been clear to every reasonable official.

Brown v. Cate · filed 2020-04-21

Dismissal of Brown’s claims against Doe defendants and defendants Cate, Clark, Johnson, and Lopez was proper, because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that Brown’s heightened exposure to Valley Fever was unlawful under the circumstances.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established under the specific facts.

Knight v. Bobanic · filed 2020-04-22

We, however, conclude that the District Court did not commit any reversible error by granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Officers may have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim challenging a warrantless home entry when the law governing that entry was unsettled.

Hourihan v. Bitinas · filed 2020-04-22

The court sustained claims of the officers' qualified immunity under the then-unsettled scope of the community caretaking doctrine validating a limited class of searches and seizures. ... We find no error in the summary judgment, and note, additionally, that the lawfulness of Officer Bitinas's initial entry is confirmed by the adequate trial evidence that plaintiff gave him consent to enter in order to make safe the weapons described.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they committed a constitutional violation.

Smith 883833 v. Harry · filed 2020-04-22

The Magistrate Judge properly determined that where Plaintiff failed to show that Defendants committed a constitutional violation, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity(R&R, ECF No. 44 at PageID.233, citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)).

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Marshall v. Fox · filed 2020-04-22

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Id. As previously discussed, there is no issue of material fact that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right. As such, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages when it is reasonable to await an ongoing judicial process and the official has no immediate duty to seek the plaintiff’s release.

Earley v. Annucci · filed 2020-04-23

While our prior cases have properly placed on Annucci the obligation of beginning efforts to expeditiously implement the holding of Earley I as soon as rehearing of that case was denied, he had no comparable duty to intervene in an ongoing case to seek a remedy that had not yet been officially granted and made effective by the district court. Accordingly, Annucci is entitled to qualified immunity for the entire time period referenced in Earley’s Second Amended Complaint.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Jones v. Manriquez · filed 2020-04-23

Jones does not meet his burden of showing that the officers violated his constitutional rights. And even if he did, he does not meet his burden of showing that any violated right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Qualified immunity does not shield prison officials from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable official in their position would know their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Wilk v. Neven · filed 2020-04-23

Any reasonable prison official in the defendants’ position would know that the actions defendants took, and failed to take, violated the Eighth Amendment. None of the defendants can claim ignorance to a prisoner’s right to be protected from violence at the hands of other inmates.

Qualified immunity can entitle defendants in a Section 1983 action to judgment in their favor.

Arellano v. Ojeda · filed 2020-04-23

Defendants Mack and Helmick are entitled to qualified immunity from suit and judgment in their favor.

Qualified immunity does not shield a § 1983 defendant at the pleading stage when the alleged disclosure violates a clearly established right to medical privacy.

Grimes v. County Of Cook · filed 2020-04-23

It follows that Judkins is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Hernandez v. Federal Way · filed 2020-04-24

Federal “qualified immunity 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 [officer] would have known.’” ... Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, this Court found, supra, that the officers did not violate Ricardo’s constitutional rights. ... As such, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claim for federal qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when their actions do not violate the Constitution.

Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas · filed 2020-04-24

We therefore hold that the Griffiths are entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 excessive-force claims because their actions did not violate the constitution.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when material factual disputes affect whether the officer violated clearly established law.

Scott v. City of Austin · filed 2020-04-24

Further, the district court correctly determined that clearly established law at the time of White’s violation prohibited his use of force given the circumstances and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Scott.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when arguable probable cause supports the arrest, even if the officer identified different charges.

Raeburn v. Gibson · filed 2020-04-24

These combined circumstances gave Officer Gibson at least arguable probable cause to arrest Raeburn for obstructing governmental operations. ... He is entitled to qualified immunity on the arrest.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish an infringement of rights.

Cummins-Reed v. Hughes Melton, MD · filed 2020-04-27

Because the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendants infringed their rights, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as an additional or alternative ground for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against them.

Section 1983 shields officials from damages when the constitutional limit on their conduct was not clearly established.

Prude, Terrance v. Meli, Anthony · filed 2020-04-27

Finally, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from damages on all of Prude’s claims.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established.

Morgan v. Michael Fiorentino, Jr. · filed 2020-04-27

Fiorentino and Hill are entitled to qualified immunity on Morgan’s procedural due process claim.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer who reasonably believes there is probable cause for a warrantless arrest, even if that belief is mistaken.

Ortiz v. Morris · filed 2020-04-27

In the context of a warrantless arrest, a reasonable belief of probable cause held by an arresting officer, even if ultimately mistaken, entitles the officer to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officials from damages under § 1983 when they have not violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Recca v. Pignotti · filed 2020-04-27

Defendants are four Omaha police officers who are sued in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court finds each Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions were objectively reasonable and no clearly established right was violated.

DeBruin v. The Macedon Police Department · filed 2020-04-27

Based on the undisputed facts of this case, I find as a matter of law that Colella’s actions were objectively reasonable, and that defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim must show that the defendant violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Handy v. Fisher · filed 2020-04-28

Once a defendant raises a qualified immunity defense, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that they have sufficiently met both prongs. ... These cases cannot support a finding that the violation in the instant case was clearly established.

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

Garcia v. Blevins · filed 2020-04-30

We therefore hold Blevins is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

An official who waives the argument that the challenged conduct fell within his discretionary authority cannot invoke qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim.

Haywood v. Hough · filed 2020-04-30

This amounts to a conscious waiver of the argument that he acted pursuant to his discretionary functions. Accordingly, Hubbard may not raise qualified immunity as a defense regardless of whether he violated any clearly established right.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim when the claimant lacks sufficient evidence of a retaliatory motive.

Allen v. Familycare, Inc. · filed 2020-04-30

Thus, the district court should have granted Allen qualified immunity from FamilyCare’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that no objective officer could reasonably have believed an involuntary detention was justified.

Watkins v. Sergeant M. Bigwood · filed 2020-04-30

In light of the factual allegations raised and against the backdrop of Watkins I, the Court concludes that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that an objective officer could not have concluded reasonably that Plaintiff met the criteria for involuntary examination under the Baker Act. Accordingly, Bigwood is not entitled to qualified immunity under Count I.

A Section 1983 complaint must plausibly allege a constitutional violation and a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity.

Norman v. Stallings · filed 2020-04-30

To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Section 1983 claims based on the defense of qualified immunity, plaintiffs “must allege facts sufficient to show (assuming they are true) that the defendants plausibly violated their constitutional rights, and that those rights were clearly established at the time.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir. 2008). ... Hence, Plaintiff has not avoided a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his lawsuit based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars damages under Section 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Mora-Contreras v. Peters · filed 2020-04-30

The Court also held that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claims, because Plaintiffs’ right not to serve as informants, and to refuse to provide false information to prison officials, was not clearly established at the time of the alleged offense. ... Qualified immunity bars Plaintiffs’ claim for damages with respect to their First Amendment claims, and Staggs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly suppressing exculpatory evidence when the duty to disclose was clearly established and whether the officer suppressed it remains disputed.

Jordan v. Blount County · filed 2020-04-30

The court finds Carpenter is not entitled to qualified immunity as to the Wheeler Road Knife or the March 13 memo.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 unlawful-entry claim when the officers are not entitled to that defense.

Ruby Hicks v. Scott · filed 2020-05-01

She asserted federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful entry, excessive force, and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, as well as state-law claims for wrongful death and battery. ... We find that the district court erred by granting qualified immunity to Scott, Moore, and Schneider on the unlawful entry claim.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to plead a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lucky Tunes 3, L.L.C. v. Smith · filed 2020-05-01

Because Lucky Tunes has failed to plead a violation of any constitutional right, much less a clearly established one, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a section 1983 claim when the record is insufficient to establish the official’s entitlement to it.

Bufflehead Point, LLC v. Pamlico County · filed 2020-05-04

The record is insufficient to conclude that Lenhart is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Accordingly, the court denies Lenhart’s motion to dismiss concerning Bufflehead Point’s equal protection claim under section 1983.

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

Chidume v. GreenBurgh-North Castle Union Free School District · filed 2020-05-04

It was thus not clearly established whether Plaintiff’s union advocacy at the time of Defendants’ alleged retaliation was protected under the First Amendment, and the individual Defendants McGuffog, Levine, and Hendrickson are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the officer violates no clearly established federal right.

Anderson v. Vazquez · filed 2020-05-06

Officer Vasquez was entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officers when the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time.

Contreras v. Conrad · filed 2020-05-06

The court accordingly concludes that the right to record police officers conducting their official duties in public was not clearly established at the time of Contreras’s traffic stop. The court will grant the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim on that basis.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when a material factual dispute prevents the court from determining whether the officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable.

Rodriguez v. City Of Laredo · filed 2020-05-07

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented evidence which satisfies both prongs of the qualified-immunity analysis. As such, the Officer Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for this claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts bear on whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest was lawful.

Kokesh v. Curlee · filed 2020-05-07

As discussed above, genuine issues of material fact are present that bear on the determination of whether a reasonable officer could have believed that Kokesh's arrest was lawful. Therefore, Curlee's motion for summary judgment regarding his entitlement to qualified immunity is denied.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from an individual-capacity § 1983 claim for a warrantless arrest when probable cause existed to make the arrest.

Allemang v. Louisiana · filed 2020-05-07

When a warrantless arrest is the subject of an action brought under § 1983, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff. ... Based on the evidence presented, the Court agrees that Trooper Rogers had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

In a § 1983 suit, qualified immunity cannot be granted on the ground that the plaintiff’s facts show no constitutional violation when those facts could support a finding of one.

Drumgo v. Kuschel · filed 2020-05-11

The District Court erred in ruling, under the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that the facts set forth by Drumgo are insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of the challenged conduct was not clearly established.

Orem v. Gillmore · filed 2020-05-11

We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the reasonableness of Gillmore’s warrantless search is not “beyond debate.” Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that Gillmore is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

BURGA v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD · filed 2020-05-11

Notwithstanding that plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, I find in the alternative that officer defendants are also entitled to the protections of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not justify dismissing a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.

Silva v. Kilham · filed 2020-05-12

Because the Eighth Amendment clearly proscribes deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners whether manifested by denial or delay of, or interference with, medical treatment, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104- 105, the Court must deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 must show that the challenged conduct fell within his discretionary authority to be eligible for qualified immunity.

Robinson v. L.B. Rankin · filed 2020-05-13

Here, it is uncontested, and indisputable, that Easterwood was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he opened fire at the Mazda.

Section 1983 officers cannot obtain qualified immunity on an excessive force claim at summary judgment when disputed facts are material to whether their conduct was reasonable.

Aghoghoubia v. Noel (Shield No. 1967) · filed 2020-05-13

Therefore, the court finds that Noel and Murdocco are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim at this time.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Spagnuolo v. Howell · filed 2020-05-14

Accordingly, the District Court did not err in finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity for the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims.

Section 1983 claims against an officer can proceed past qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable officer would have understood.

Lopez v. City of Glendora · filed 2020-05-14

That law was clearly established at the time of the incident, and the district court correctly found that, on Lopez’s alleged facts, any reasonable officer would have realized his actions violated the law.

Section 1983 officers may receive qualified immunity on a claim challenging a search warrant when they reasonably could believe the warrant was supported by probable cause.

Christanna Bullock v. City of Detroit, Mich. · filed 2020-05-14

Under this precedent, the officers in this case are entitled to qualified immunity because they could reasonably believe that they had probable cause based on the controlled buy.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity damages claim under Section 1983 when the officer’s conduct violates no federal right.

Batyukova v. Doege · filed 2020-05-15

The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages in individual-capacity suits unless the officer’s conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law. ... This case is resolved at the first prong: whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a federal right. ... Because Doege’s decision to use deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the facts cannot support a finding of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Doege is entitled to summary judgment on Batyukova’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity bars monetary recovery under Section 1983 against a state official unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Quinn v. Cardenas · filed 2020-05-15

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Cardenas’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) is granted in part as to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim (paragraph IX of the Complaint, Doc. 1-1) because Officer Cardenas is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a First Amendment retaliation claim when a reasonable official would not have understood that the challenged conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Milliken v. Studervant · filed 2020-05-15

Finally, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. ... Accordingly, a reasonable official would not have understood that retaining plaintiff in Ad-Seg for failing to debrief violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

In a § 1983 claim, a court need not continue the qualified immunity analysis if the plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation.

Madrid v. King · filed 2020-05-15

If no constitutional violation is established, then there is no need to engage in further qualified immunity analysis.

Officers are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 false arrest claim when they fail to establish arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Jourdain v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · filed 2020-05-15

Thus, I deny summary judgment on the § 1983 false arrest claim because I cannot conclude that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity on a malicious prosecution claim when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause supported the prosecution.

Garcia v. Gridley · filed 2020-05-18

Therefore, even if probable cause was vitiated by the failed identifications, the Court finds that “officers of reasonable competence” could conclude that there was probable cause supporting charging Garcia, and Gridley is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Government officials may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 judicial-deception claim when the plaintiffs offer no evidence that the officials deceived the court during child-removal proceedings.

Davidson v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2020-05-19

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. We have held that government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates the clearly established right to be free from judicial deception during removal proceedings. ... Here, Plaintiffs submitted no evidence to support their claims of judicial deception, let alone evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent does not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Gorostieta v. Hendrix · filed 2020-05-19

Because no existing precedent “squarely governs” the facts of this case, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Boucher v. Tennessee · filed 2020-05-20

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Officer Malone will be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action cannot obtain qualified immunity when the facts viewed in the plaintiff’s favor show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lumbard v. St. Joseph Cty. Sheriff Dep't. · filed 2020-05-21

Against this somewhat fragmented backdrop, we will assess this appeal as one challenging the denial of Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity to Lumbard’s § 1983 claims. To overcome that assertion, Lumbard must establish that the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to him, “show that a constitutional violation occurred,” and that the “violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges an obvious violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Zarkower v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-21

The defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged conduct does not violate a clearly established right. I disagree. The complaint alleges an obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable detention. Thus, the defendants’ motion is denied.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an officer for conduct preceding a shooting when no clearly established law made that conduct unlawful.

Cox v. Wilson · filed 2020-05-22

More importantly, even if the jury was persuaded by the expert’s trial testimony that Wilson had acted unreasonably in leaving his vehicle, qualified immunity protected Wilson from liability on that score.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Toliver v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2020-05-22

Defendant Cole argues that even if he instituted a false or unlawful arrest, he would nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also disagrees on this point.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from § 1983 liability for First Amendment retaliation when the right was clearly established at the time of the conduct.

DOWNS v. BOROUGH OF JENKINTOWN · filed 2020-05-22

Accordingly, Locke is not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim.

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

Ashaheed v. Porcher · filed 2020-05-26

Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that Plaintiff’s right to maintain his beard was clearly established under the First Amendment at the time of Defendant’s conduct, the Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as to that Claim.

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

Saal v. City of Wooster · filed 2020-05-26

Thus, without the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendants Rotolo and Chief Fisher are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to Saal’s § 1983 claim.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful-arrest claim when clearly established law would have made the arrest’s illegality apparent to a reasonable officer.

Corona v. City of Clovis · filed 2020-05-27

We thus conclude that, in light of Keylon, a reasonable officer in Defendant Aguilar’s position would have known that his conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, violated the Fourth Amendment. Defendant Aguilar is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s unlawful-arrest claim. ... For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Defendant Aguilar qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 unlawful-arrest claim.

Officers sued under § 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when factual disputes remain about whether a reasonable officer could believe deadly force was necessary.

Owens v. City of New York · filed 2020-05-27

The defendants further failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonable officer, facing the same situation, could have believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect himself or herself or others from death or serious physical injury, and that the defendant officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity ( see Pearson v Callahan , 555 US 223; Graham v Connor , 490 US 386; Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d at 686).

Officers sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Monica v. Williams · filed 2020-05-27

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity on Monica’s Fourth Amendment claims involving the initial traffic stop. Williams’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when a corrected warrant affidavit does not establish probable cause.

Wheeler v. Searcy Arkansas, City of · filed 2020-05-27

Accordingly, the Court finds that Sexton, Kidder, and Darnell are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Wheeler’s claim that he was arrested and detained without probable cause.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the record does not establish a constitutional violation.

Cunningham v. State of Michigan Department of State Police · filed 2020-05-27

This Court has found that the record here does not establish any constitutional violations. Thus, Plaintiff cannot defeat Defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the officials did not violate a clearly established right.

Kulhanek v. Griffith · filed 2020-05-27

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Accordingly, there was no violation of a “clearly established” right, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s due process claims.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right to a particular medical treatment was not clearly established.

Insco v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-05-28

In light of medical developments and the lack of legal authority establishing that the unlawfulness of Defendants’ course of action in this case is apparent, Moore would not have been on notice of a “clearly established” right of Plaintiff to be treated with DAA drugs. Thus, Moore is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the assumed facts show a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Cole v. Hutchins · filed 2020-05-28

But, based on the facts we are bound to assume, we conclude Officer Hutchins violated Richards’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from use of deadly force when he did not pose an immediate threat of serious physical harm to others and any such immediate threat he may have posed previously was no longer present when he was shot.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Sanford v. City of Detroit, Mich. · filed 2020-05-28

Sanford thereafter brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming among other things that Russell and Tolbert had fabricated evidence, coerced his confession, and maliciously prosecuted him. ... Determinations of qualified immunity require us to answer two questions: first, whether the officer violated a constitutional right; and second, whether that right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. ... The officers therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot overcome qualified immunity without showing that the defendant violated a statutory or constitutional right.

Zuress v. City of Newark, Ohio · filed 2020-05-28

For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “that [defendant] violated a statutory or constitutional right” and therefore has not rebutted defendant’s claim of qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 excessive force suit, disputed material facts about whether officers violated clearly established rights prevent summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Woolverton v. City of Wardell · filed 2020-05-28

Because fact issues remain regarding whether Defendants violated Woolverton’s clearly established rights in employing the takedown maneuver, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied.

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

Kong v. City of Burnsville · filed 2020-05-29

The officers assert qualified immunity against the Section 1983 claim. They are entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts show a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. ... Even if the facts showed that the officers had violated Kong’s Fourth Amendment right, the law at the time of the shooting—March 17, 2016—did not clearly establish the right.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 failure to protect claim when disputed facts could show that prison officials disregarded a known risk of gang violence in violation of clearly established rights.

Brower v. Powell · filed 2020-05-29

Prison officials’ failure to protect an inmate from gang violence violates a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, defendants’ qualified immunity argument fails.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against an officer when the law did not clearly establish that his conduct violated a constitutional right.

Brown v. Coulston · filed 2020-05-29

Because the law does not put the constitutionality of Officer Coulston’s actions toward T.B. beyond debate, Coulston is entitled to qualified immunity. In a school setting, the law is not clearly established regarding use of force by police officers, particularly in regard to the use of handcuffs to restrain disruptive students.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s supported version of disputed facts shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Veladores v. Las Vegas Metropolitian Police Department · filed 2020-05-31

As for the second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry, Plaintiffs have also met their burden in showing that Defendant violated a clearly established right.

Section 1983 defendants cannot obtain qualified immunity on the pleadings when the alleged facts do not establish that they reasonably believed their acts were lawful.

Hong v. Aigle · filed 2020-06-01

However, at this stage in litigation I cannot find that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. ... Based on the alleged facts in the pro se complaint and brief in opposition, I cannot make a finding of fact that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe their acts were lawful.

Section 1983 claims against state officers are subject to qualified immunity when no clearly established law required a nonparolee occupant’s consent to a search of a residence shared with a parolee.

Foster v. McCabe · filed 2020-06-01

The court agrees with the State Defendants that there was no clearly established law requiring Ms. Rodgers’s consent before conducting the warrantless search of the residence she shared with her parolee-son, and that the State Defendants are accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on her § 1983 claim.

Officials sued under § 1983 who properly raise qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss are entitled to a ruling on that defense when the court reinstates the claim on reconsideration.

Spann v. Lombardi · filed 2020-06-03

Because the order granting the motion for reconsideration effectively denied the officials’ motion to dismiss without ruling on qualified immunity, we will remand the case for further proceedings to address the question of qualified immunity on Count II.

Section 1983 does not shield an official through qualified immunity when clearly established law gave a reasonable official fair notice that the conduct was unlawful.

Galvan v. Duffie · filed 2020-06-03

The district court did not err in denying qualified immunity where Defendant-Appellant removed Plaintiff-Appellee’s wisdom tooth over his objection.

Officers sued under § 1983 for excessive force are entitled to qualified immunity when their use of force does not violate clearly established law.

Hudlow v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-06-03

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ minimal use of force under the circumstances did not violate clearly established law and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when no reasonable jury could find that their use of force violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Nelson v. Brown · filed 2020-06-03

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Morse and Brown are entitled to qualified immunity because based on the record evidence (viewed most favorably to Plaintiff as required), no reasonable jury could find that Morse or Brown’s use of force was objectively unreasonable in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material facts remain disputed about a private physician’s reliance on officers’ representations about a search warrant.

Young v. Gila Reg'l Med. Ctr. · filed 2020-06-04

Because there are factual disputes as to the content of the officers’ representations concerning the validity and permissible scope of the search and Beesley’s reliance on those representations in conducting the search, it was error for the district court to conclude as a matter of law that Beesley was entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 excessive-force suit, qualified immunity depends on whether the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts could show a violation of a clearly established right.

Amador v. Bexar County · filed 2020-06-04

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.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Liberti v. City of Scottsdale · filed 2020-06-05

The district court correctly found that qualified immunity barred Plaintiffs’ claim that the officers violated Liberti’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive and deadly force against him.

Qualified immunity does not require dismissal of a § 1983 claim against a school aide when the alleged conduct plausibly falls outside his discretionary authority.

Clines v. St. Louis Public Schools · filed 2020-06-05

There is a reasonable inference that such conduct is not within the scope of Wooten’s discretionary authority as an ICA who is trained in non-violent methods of addressing disruptive behavior of special education students. Thus, Wooten is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts could establish that a prison officer failed to protect an inmate from a known danger.

Dizzley v. Tutt · filed 2020-06-05

Following Walker and this district’s decision in Orange, the court overrules Defendants’ objections and denies summary judgment on the defense of qualified immunity.

Government employees may have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their alleged conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Haithcote v. Woodard · filed 2020-06-05

In other words, even if the Court assumes that Defendants drew the conclusion that Plaintiff had been harmed in the inmate attack on him, Plaintiff simply has not alleged facts that allow the Court to plausibly infer that Defendants’ acts of assisting him with walking away from his attacker and restraining him in a chair while they waited for an ambulance were plainly incompetent or knowingly in violation of well-established law in light of the circumstances that Defendants observed. As such, Defendants Cooper and Jordan’s motion to dismiss this action on the ground of qualified immunity [Doc. 37] will be GRANTED.

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

Grant Haze, III v. Harrison · filed 2020-06-08

Nevertheless, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Haze’s Fourth Amendment claim. Neither we nor the Supreme Court has previously considered the question of whether incarcerated persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their legal mail.

Qualified immunity does not protect a defendant from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Odom v. Julius · filed 2020-06-08

Defendant is also not entitled to qualified immunity as it was clearly established at the time of the events in question that applying force in a manner inconsistent with maintaining or restoring discipline implicates an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity shields officials from damages under Section 1983 but does not bar claims for injunctive relief.

Singleton v. Cannizzaro · filed 2020-06-08

Qualified immunity does not, therefore, shield officials from claims for injunctive relief.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the evidence could show conduct that violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Young v. Morgan · filed 2020-06-08

Lastly, Sergeant Fisher is not entitled to qualified immunity, as her actions were not objectively reasonable and Mr. Young’s right to be protected from other inmates and right to be free from deliberate indifference to a serious medical need are both clearly established.

In a Section 1983 excessive force claim, courts assessing officers’ qualified immunity at summary judgment must view disputed facts in the plaintiff’s favor.

Pena v. City of Rio Grande City, Texa · filed 2020-06-08

As an initial matter, the district court erroneously failed to consider the facts in the light most favorable to Peña and dismissed genuine disputes of material fact as merely “slightly differing.”

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the alleged misconduct violated a clearly established right.

Gossett v. Pierce County · filed 2020-06-09

Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that any alleged violation of Plaintiff’s right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Deputy Petershagen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed.

A defendant in a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause supported the arrest.

Pollack v. Boulder County · filed 2020-06-09

Since even without the interview “a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed to make the arrest” Deputy Miller is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established right.

Dash v. Mayers · filed 2020-06-09

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims.

A county cannot assert qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim.

Tillmon v. County of Douglas · filed 2020-06-10

Because the County is not entitled to qualified immunity, we do not have jurisdiction over its appeal under the collateral-order doctrine.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim for shooting at someone in a fleeing vehicle that poses no danger to officers or the public.

Stoddard-Nunez v. City of Hayward · filed 2020-06-10

At the time of the incident, it was clearly established that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting at an individual in a fleeing vehicle that does not pose a danger to them or to the public.

A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

HART v. BROWN · filed 2020-06-10

Warden Brown therefore is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment arrest claims when they reasonably believe a court rule prohibits the conduct and have probable cause to arrest.

Enoch v. Hamilton Cty. Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-06-11

Because it was not objectively unreasonable for the Deputies to conclude that they were enforcing Rule 33(D)(6) when they arrested Enoch and Corbin—and thus had probable cause to arrest them—they are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claims.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on officers who are entitled to qualified immunity for a seizure and forfeiture action supported by probable cause.

LEMONT LOVE VS. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1551-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-06-12

Because there was probable cause to initiate the forfeiture action, the motion court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Love's claims against Mullen, Wilson, and Bertucci because each are entitled to qualified immunity and cannot be found liable under Section 1983 or the TCA.

Section 1983 claims against jail officials may survive a qualified immunity motion to dismiss when the complaint plausibly alleges that they knew of a detainee’s substantial suicide risk and failed to take reasonable precautions.

Converse v. City of Kemah, Texas, et · filed 2020-06-12

After limited discovery, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims based on qualified immunity. Because Plaintiffs’ complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief, we REVERSE and REMAND.

A prison officer's qualified immunity did not defeat a § 1983 retaliation claim at the pleading stage where the complaint, liberally construed, established a constitutional violation.

Postawko v. Precythe · filed 2020-06-12

Finally, because the Court has determined that plaintiff’s complaint, liberally construed, establishes a constitutional violation, Officer Flieg’s argument that he has qualified immunity is unavailing.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Dillard v. Rick Hoyt · filed 2020-06-15

The issue presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether individual Defendants O’Kelley, Cate, and Hoyt are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ § 1983 damage claims. ... Under Reichle, therefore, the uncertain status of the right to informational privacy means that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Richardson v. Johnson · filed 2020-06-15

Because there is no issue of material fact as to whether Defendants are entitled to Qualified Immunity, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this ground.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from damages under § 1983 when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Curtis v. Porter · filed 2020-06-16

Sergeant Porter argues he is entitled to qualified immunity as Mr. Curtis has failed to establish a constitutional violation. ECF No. 23 at 11-12. The Court agrees. As discussed above, Mr. Curtis has not established a First Amendment constitutional violation.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Bronnenberg v. Egger · filed 2020-06-16

We affirm summary judgment because Ms. Bronnenberg has not shown that the right she claims Officer Egger violated was clearly established at the time of his actions.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when disputed facts could show they used deadly force despite clearly established limits on its use and the requirement to warn when feasible.

Bowles v. City of San Jose · filed 2020-06-16

The officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the shooting, the law was clearly established as to the prohibition on use of deadly force unless the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others, and the requirement to warn before using deadly force when feasible.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the allegations leave facts material to immunity unresolved.

Cornel v. State of Hawaii · filed 2020-06-17

For that reason, it is also premature to address Kauahi’s claim of qualified immunity under federal law. ... The Motion to Dismiss, however, is DENIED as to the federal claims against Kauahi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In a Section 1983 claim, disputed material facts can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Gordon v. Niesen · filed 2020-06-17

Because there is a genuine dispute as to various material facts here, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when he ignores complaints about injuriously tight handcuffs for at least fifteen minutes.

Estep v. Combs · filed 2020-06-17

This course of conduct, distinguishable from Fettes, falls within the heartland of the unduly tight handcuffing prohibition as clearly established at the time of Estep’s arrest.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint’s allegations suffice and the court cannot consider evidence.

Nelson v. Precythe · filed 2020-06-17

Likewise, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation since Defendants move solely to dismiss such that the Court is limited to the Amended Complaint and anything embraced by it; the Court is not at liberty to consider evidence.

Qualified immunity does not shield prison officials from § 1983 damages for denying meaningful exercise when that right was clearly established, even if the denial arose from winter conditions.

McCray v. Lee · filed 2020-06-18

Finally, we disagree with the district court's alternative ruling that even if the Complaint stated a cause of action for denial of a meaningful opportunity for physical exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment, defendants would be entitled to dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity.

An officer acting within his discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Lewis v. Entrekin · filed 2020-06-18

Mr. Lewis’s claim does not survive summary judgment because the facts, construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Lewis, do not demonstrate that the right to medical care any sooner than Mr. Lewis received it was clearly established.

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment on a § 1983 claim must show an absence of evidence that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Perkins v. City of Modesto · filed 2020-06-18

As the party moving for summary judgment, here plaintiff must demonstrate that there is an “absence of evidence” that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under § 1983 when the officer’s conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Boudoin v. Harsson · filed 2020-06-22

Harsson is thus entitled to qualified immunity on Boudoin’s § 1983 excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against jail supervisors when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Grochowski v. Clayton County, Georgia · filed 2020-06-22

Absent any constitutional violation, the Jail Supervisors are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer with arguable probable cause to seek an arrest warrant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

MAHONE v. GEORGIA · filed 2020-06-22

Therefore, Officer Stewart had arguable probable cause to seek an arrest warrant for home invasion against Plaintiff, and he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 malicious prosecution claim.

An officer facing a Section 1983 false arrest claim is not entitled to qualified immunity when disputed facts prevent a finding of arguable probable cause.

Botas v. City of New York · filed 2020-06-22

If no contraband was found in the basement, it was not objectively reasonable for officers to arrest plaintiffs based on their “mere presence” in the home. ... Accordingly, Clarke is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit cannot be resolved at summary judgment when material facts about the defendant’s conduct remain disputed.

Hewitt v. Young · filed 2020-06-22

Accordingly, the parties dispute as to whether Defendant Green excessively tightened the handcuffs and then refused to loosen them is sufficient to preclude ruling on the issue of qualified immunity at this stage.

In a § 1983 suit, a denial of qualified immunity stands on interlocutory appeal when defendants challenge factual findings and inadequately brief their clearly established law argument.

Sawyers v. Norton · filed 2020-06-23

We affirm the denial of the three officers’ motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity to the § 1983 claim. First, we lack jurisdiction on interlocutory review to address their factual challenges to the district court’s conclusion that a jury could find a constitutional violation. Second, due to inadequate briefing, they waived an argument about clearly established law.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming an official’s qualified-immunity defense.

Richards v. County of Washtenaw · filed 2020-06-24

A plaintiff who brings a § 1983 action against such an official bears the burden of overcoming the qualified-immunity defense.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff has not shown a violation of a constitutional right.

Peaks v. Ash · filed 2020-06-24

As a result, the...defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim against a prison official where factual disputes remain about whether he disregarded a serious risk to an inmate’s safety, conduct that violated clearly established law.

Brand v. Cox · filed 2020-06-25

Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb’s recommendation in full. ... Judge Cobb also found Mullins is not protected by qualified immunity because it was clearly established in 2015 that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment if they know of a serious risk to an inmate’s safety but disregard that risk. ... It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 172) is adopted in its entirety.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim for using significant force against an arrestee who is no longer resisting or posing a threat.

Jones v. Treubig · filed 2020-06-26

In sum, upon a review of the relevant legal authority, we hold that it was clearly established as of April 2015 that a police officer cannot use significant force, such as a taser, against an individual who is no longer resisting or posing a threat to the officers or others.

An officer sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity unless the officer violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Smith v. City of Stockton · filed 2020-06-26

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to immunity from suit unless the officer’s conduct (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s actions.

Qualified immunity does not shield defendants from a § 1983 claim when disputed facts could show that they ignored a clearly established risk of imminent self-harm.

Singer v. Schettle · filed 2020-06-29

The law establishing the defendants’ potentially wrongful acts was clearly established in May and June 2017, as discussed in Estate of Miller, 680 F.3d at 989; Collins, 462 F.3d at 760; and the cases cited in those decisions. As discussed, the evidence establishes that Singer faced an objectively serious risk of harm, and there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the defendants were aware of that risk and ignored it. If Singer told the defendants on May 8 or June 1, 2017, that he would cut out his tooth with a razorblade, then they may be liable for failing to act to protect him from that imminent risk of self-harm. The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Singer’s Eighth Amendment claim.

A prison officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim based on a prisoner’s request for a grievance form or threat to file a grievance when the protected nature of that conduct was clearly established.

(PC) Gleason v. Gallegos · filed 2020-06-29

Whether plaintiff’s conduct constituted a threat to file an inmate grievance or the first step in the grievance filing process is immaterial: as binding Ninth Circuit precedent establishes, plaintiff’s conduct was constitutionally protected and the protected nature of that conduct was clearly established at the time of the events in this case.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity on a failure-to-protect claim when the evidence does not show deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm.

Davis v. Bradshaw · filed 2020-06-29

Because the record lacks evidence of deliberate indifference, the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity and to summary judgment on Davis’s claim that they violated the Constitution by failing to protect him.

Section 1983 allows state officials sued personally for damages to assert qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of clearly established law.

Aris v. Ward · filed 2020-06-29

The court finds that the defendant Jameson is entitled to qualified immunity.

Defendants in a § 1983 action may be denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Burns v. Cox · filed 2020-06-29

Judge Cobb further found Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. (Id. at 15.) Having reviewed the R&R, the Complaint and Defendants’ Motion, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb.

Qualified immunity permits limited discovery in a Section 1983 suit while an appeal of an immunity ruling is pending.

Weaver v. Stroman · filed 2020-06-30

This Court reiterates the Supreme Court’s emphasis on “disruptive discovery” to stress that, in the process of resolving qualified immunity, limited discovery can be allowed.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

CHAUDRY v. FARABELLA · filed 2020-06-30

On this record, the Court finds that the actions of Calchi and Phillips were objectively reasonable under the circumstances, entitling defendants to qualified immunity because there is no constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officers when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time.

Cunningham v. Baltimore Cnty. · filed 2020-07-01

We further hold that, even if the initial entry was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, such a violation was not “clearly established” at the time of the entry. Thus, summary judgment was appropriate on the § 1983 claims for this additional reason.

A government actor is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sevy v. Barach · filed 2020-07-01

On the First Amendment claim, Barach has demonstrated that Sevy’s asserted First Amendment right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, so Barach is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation or clearly established law making the official’s conduct objectively unreasonable.

Baldwin v. Harris County Sheriff Dept · filed 2020-07-01

Because Baldwin fails to establish a triable material issue concerning a violation of a constitutional right or law clearly establishing that Dorsey’s alleged conduct was objectively unreasonable, we conclude that Dorsey is entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to adequately allege a constitutional violation.

Corrigan v. Metropolitan State University of Denver · filed 2020-07-01

As explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutional deprivation of her procedural due process right under either theory. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 in their individual capacities may receive qualified immunity when they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Galloway · filed 2020-07-01

Upon review, Defendants Fernandez, Hodgson, Drake, and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages in their individual capacities as to Williams’ Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against them.

A prison official who knows an inmate faces an ongoing, substantial risk of violent assault and takes no protective action is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Balsewicz v. Pawlyk · filed 2020-07-02

Given the clear governing rules set out by Farmer, and given their application in cases confirming that inaction in like circumstances violates an inmate’s constitutional right, Sergeant Pawlyk is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Disputed facts about an alleged constitutional violation can prevent a court from resolving qualified immunity for § 1983 defendants at summary judgment.

Jones v. Jordan · filed 2020-07-02

Here, the Court could not determine if Officer Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, because the facts supporting Jones’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are hotly contested.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the right is clearly established and the facts do not establish that the officer’s force was reasonable.

Seyfarth v. Hahn · filed 2020-07-02

Because the constitutional right is clearly established in this case, the focus then is on whether Hahn violated the Constitution – did he use excessive force against Seyfarth. ... The Court simply does not have enough facts to determine if Hahn’s use of force was objectively reasonable; thus, Hahn has not established he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Reasonover, 447 F.3d at 579. The Court denies Hahn’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim.

An individual defendant sued under § 1983 may be protected by qualified immunity from a First Amendment retaliation claim.

Whitehurst v. Bedford County School Board · filed 2020-07-06

The Court finds that even if Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the elements of such a First Amendment violation, her claim is barred by qualified immunity.

A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim based on a reckless omission from a warrant affidavit needs factually analogous precedent to overcome qualified immunity.

Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2020-07-06

Thus, similar to excessive force claims, the context-dependent nature of Kapinski’s reckless omission claim necessitates a factually analogous precedent to overcome the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.