42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when an inmate’s asserted right to group worship was not clearly established.

Morecraft v. Baldwin · filed 2020-07-06

The Court finds that the proper inquiry in this instance is whether it was clearly established that Defendants Lashbrook and Vaughn were constitutionally required to allow group services for Asatru practitioners at Lawrence. ... Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Count One.

Qualified immunity protects a defendant from a Section 1983 claim when reasonable officials could disagree about whether there was probable cause.

Aouatif v. City of New York. · filed 2020-07-07

Though we assume arguendo that Kotbi acted under color of state law and that Plaintiff was transported to the hospital involuntarily, we need not decide whether Kotbi violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights because we affirm the District Court’s alternative holding that Kotbi was entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court concluded that reasonable officials could disagree as to whether Kotbi had probable cause to believe that—at the time of the Kotbi’s June 11 phone call to 911—Plaintiff presented a danger to herself or others.

Qualified immunity does not shield correctional officers from a Section 1983 claim for threatening an inmate with violence or punishment in retaliation for filing grievances when that right was clearly established.

Hoever v. R. Marks · filed 2020-07-07

Because Hoever’s right to be free from implied threats of violence or punishment in retaliation for filing grievances was clearly established, the district court did not err in declining to grant Marks’ and Paul’s motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 lack qualified immunity for depriving an inmate of a functional mattress for over 200 days without a legitimate penological reason when clearly established law warned that the deprivation was unconstitutional.

Tabu McClure v. Commissioner Jeffrey Haste · filed 2020-07-08

Finally, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, even if there was an Eighth Amendment violation, the right at play was not clearly established. ... We conclude that, at the time the mattress restriction was in effect, it was clearly established that an inmate could not be effectively deprived a functional mattress for over 200 days, for no legitimate penological reason, particularly where the deprivation caused the exacerbation of his pre-existing back problems.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when disputed facts must be settled before the court can decide whether the officer violated clearly established rights.

Hampton v. San Joaquin County Sheriffs Department · filed 2020-07-08

Instead, “only the jury can decide disputed factual issues” that must be resolved before a court can consider whether any resulting violation of Hampton’s rights was clearly established. Summary adjudication as to the First Cause of Action on qualified immunity grounds is accordingly also inappropriate.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when a jury must resolve whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable.

Fair v. Stevens · filed 2020-07-08

However, the reasonableness of Defendant’s use of force is a jury question in the instant case that precludes the Court from determining whether Defendant Stephens violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights. Summary judgment based on qualified immunity will therefore be denied.

A § 1983 plaintiff may be required to provide a more definite statement when the complaint lacks facts needed for the defendant to frame a fact-specific qualified immunity defense.

HOWARD v. RIHL · filed 2020-07-08

Our Court of Appeals has held that a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement should be granted where, as here, the complaint does not disclose the facts underlying a plaintiff’s claim for relief so that defendant may be reasonably able to “frame a proper, fact-specific qualified immunity defense.” See Thomas v. Independence Tp., 463 F.3d 285, 301 (3d Cir. 2006). ... The Court will deny without prejudice the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and grant defendant’s motion under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement of plaintiff’s claims.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment in a Section 1983 suit when the plaintiff’s evidence shows an officer used deadly force against a surrendering suspect who posed no imminent threat.

Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide) · filed 2020-07-09

Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Detective Martinez qualified immunity and dismissing Baskin’s Section 1983 lawsuit.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when existing precedent does not clearly establish that the particular use of force was unlawful.

Shelton v. Stevens · filed 2020-07-09

Some use of force was reasonable, and constitutional distinctions among a chokehold, a radio-bang to the head, and an unreasonable ankle-stomp—all objectively designed to prompt Shelton to surrender his hands—are hazy enough to warrant qualified immunity for Stevens.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Duncan v. Wade · filed 2020-07-09

Accordingly, even if Deputy Ward did use excessive force, such a violation was neither “clearly established” according to fact-specific case law, nor was it “readily apparent” that such conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, Deputy Ward is entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Joseph v. Jefferson · filed 2020-07-09

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.

A defendant has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that existing precedent clearly established the asserted right.

Ramsey v. Muna · filed 2020-07-13

But his opening brief’s cursory discussion of qualified immunity fails to show that “existing precedent” placed the unconstitutionality of Defendants’ conduct “beyond debate.”

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless existing precedent clearly establishes that the officer’s conduct was forbidden.

Gysan v. Francisko · filed 2020-07-13

Francisko is entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established right.

Martinez v. Norris · filed 2020-07-13

Under these facts, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and this lawsuit must be dismissed.

A defendant sued under Section 1983 does not lose qualified immunity merely by violating internal operating procedures; that violation alone does not establish a constitutional violation.

McMillen v. Windham · filed 2020-07-13

When considering the acts of officials sued in their individual capacities, an official’s violation of internal operating procedures does not, without more, amount to a constitutional violation.

Government officials sued individually under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Johnson v. HDSP · filed 2020-07-13

Plaintiff has not shown that his right to use the activity rooms—or, for that matter, the right to use any particular place—for group prayer is clearly established. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

An officer sued under Section 1983 in an individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established at the time.

Morris v. Chatham County C.N.T Division · filed 2020-07-14

For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with Defendant; in short, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that, at the time of the alleged violation, an objectively reasonable officer in Defendant’s position should have known that his actions were violative of the Constitution.

Qualified immunity protects officials sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

McLean v. Mississippi State University · filed 2020-07-14

The Court therefore finds that the individual Defendants -- Dr. Andrew Mackin, Dr. Gary Burt, and Julie Burt - are entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal from this litigation.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show conduct that a reasonable officer would understand violates a constitutional right.

Estate of Eira Saenz v. Bitterman · filed 2020-07-15

Assuming these facts are true, the Court finds that a reasonable officer would understand that these actions violate the constitutional right to substantive due process.

A plaintiff facing qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim must show both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established at the time.

Andrade v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo · filed 2020-07-15

Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion is well-taken and, therefore, is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ Count V, Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim. ... The plaintiff must put forward evidence showing (1) that the defendant violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and (2) the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the violation.

In a Section 1983 suit, defendants give fair notice of a qualified immunity defense by outlining its factual basis in general terms.

Venson v. Jackson · filed 2020-07-16

They outline in general terms the factual basis for their qualified immunity defense, including that Defendants acted within the scope of their discretion and with a good faith belief in the lawfulness of their actions.

State officials sued individually under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged retaliation violated clearly established First Amendment rights.

Caldwell v. Medina · filed 2020-07-17

Each Defendant asserts that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ federal-law claims against them in their individual capacities. ... The Court disagrees, finding that no Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Ahmed v. Detroit · filed 2020-07-17

Accordingly, Wilson is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 provides no remedy for negligent conduct, and qualified immunity bars recovery against officers unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board · filed 2020-07-20

But 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides no remedy to Plaintiff for unprofessional or negligent conduct. Instead, Plaintiff may only recover against the officers if they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim that the Guard One policy itself is inherently unconstitutional.

(PC) Heilman v. Viss · filed 2020-07-20

The court also adopts the reasoning presented in F&Rs and within the December 11, 2019, screening order, with one addition, as follows: To the extent plaintiff sought to pursue a claim here (i.e., independent of the claims presented in the Coleman case) based upon the theory that the Guard One policy itself is inherently unconstitutional, the defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity as to such a claim.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity from a false arrest claim when an officer had arguable probable cause and did not violate clearly established law.

Najera v. Brookhouser · filed 2020-07-20

Accordingly, Brookhouser is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Fourth Amendment false arrest claim brought in Count I.

Section 1983 claims survive a qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage when the allegations plausibly show a violation of clearly established law.

Dawn Hanson v. LeVan · filed 2020-07-21

And it is why the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims should not be dismissed on qualified‐immunity grounds here.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a social worker when the law did not clearly establish that her conduct violated a constitutional right.

Sawyer v. Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center · filed 2020-07-21

The Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion to skip the first step of the qualified immunity analysis here, because even if disputed factual issues remain as to whether Caballero violated Sawyer’s constitutional rights, Caballero is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the unconstitutionality of Caballero’s conduct was not clearly established at the time of the events in question.

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

Assa'ad-Faltas v. Richland County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-07-21

Because there remains a factual dispute whether Pearce stopped Assa’ad without any objective basis for probable cause for a noise violation, qualified immunity would be inappropriate at this time as to the alleged noise violation.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have known that the conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Florence v. Frauenheim · filed 2020-07-22

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Florence’s First Amendment claims on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official that confiscating CDs with explicit lyrics pursuant to a policy that prohibited prisoners from possessing media that promoted gang activity, violence, and criminal activity was unlawful under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether the officer violated a clearly established right.

Strong v. City of Vallejo · filed 2020-07-22

For the same reason that the court cannot grant summary judgment on the merits of Claim One, given the facts in dispute, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Tonn did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights or that the constitutional right to be free from the force used was not clearly established.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Hughey v. Easlick · filed 2020-07-22

Accordingly, there was no constitutional violation and, even if Plaintiff had included Fourth Amendment allegations in her complaint, Defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed material facts prevent the court from deciding whether their use of force was reasonable.

FRANKLIN v. RIVERSIDE TOWNSHIP · filed 2020-07-22

Additionally, the Court holds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment. ... Disputes of historical material fact exist as to how Franklin hit his head.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time.

Ness v. City of Bloomington · filed 2020-07-23

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability and the burdens of litigation 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.” ... Because the extent of Ness’ right to record would not have been clear to a reasonable police officer, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Wallace v. Smith · filed 2020-07-23

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity from a First Amendment retaliation claim when the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation or show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Joritz v. Gray-Little · filed 2020-07-27

Because Joritz’s complaints of discrimination and its potential impact on her prospects for tenure did not involve matters of public concern, she failed to allege a constitutional violation. ... Consequently, the administrators were entitled to qualified immunity on this aspect of Joritz’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Officials acting within their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Sorrow v. City of Atlanta · filed 2020-07-27

The Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Yourga v. Trustees of the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School · filed 2020-07-27

Count III and IV assert federal claims against the Individual Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The court starts with the second step and concludes Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he had a clearly established property or liberty right that a reasonable defendant would have understood was violated by the Individual Defendants’ conduct.

An official who decides a prison grievance is protected from § 1983 damages when the decision violates no clearly established right.

Jones v. Sheriff of Suffolk County · filed 2020-07-27

But regardless of whether the Council should be cloaked in absolute or qualified immunity, the Court is unable to identify any clearly established right that the Council violated in ruling as it did.

Individual defendants facing Section 1983 claims may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges constitutional violations.

Butler v. City of Cincinnati Ohio · filed 2020-07-27

In light of the above holdings regarding Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process right claims, the Court declines to hold that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in proceedings.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim for shooting at a fleeing vehicle after a reasonable officer would know the immediate threat had passed.

Reavis v. Frost · filed 2020-07-28

Because it was clearly established that Deputy Frost’s use of deadly force to stop Mr. Coale’s fleeing vehicle was objectively unreasonable, we affirm.

At the pleading stage, qualified immunity does not make a proposed § 1983 claim futile when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right.

Martley v. Basehor, Kansas, City of · filed 2020-07-28

Additionally, based on caselaw, the right at issue–a private citizen’s filing of a lawsuit against the government to seek redress of a grievance–appears to be clearly established. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot find the proposed amendment as to Mayor Breuer is futile, and will allow the same to proceed.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that officials knowingly violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Flowers-Bey v. Anderson · filed 2020-07-28

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in his amended complaint to state a plausible claim that defendants knowingly violated his federal constitutional rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity will be denied.

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

Rogers v. The Colony, Texas · filed 2020-07-28

Accordingly, judging from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and considering the specific circumstances in this case, Officers Wood and Shipp are entitled to qualified immunity.

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim when the right to speak freely without retaliation was clearly established.

Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish · filed 2020-07-29

The right to speak freely without retaliation has long been clearly established for the purposes of qualified immunity. ... Mr. Descheemaeker is not eligible for qualified immunity in this case.

An officer entitled to qualified immunity may obtain summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim.

Brown v. City of North Charleston · filed 2020-07-29

There were no objections by any party to the R&R’s recommendation that the court grant Pavlischek’s motion for summary judgment on the Federal Claims for two reasons: (1) because Brown failed to present sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether Pavlischek violated any of Carter’s constitutional rights and (2) Pavlischek is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Therefore, the court adopts the R&R’s recommendation and grants Pavlischek’s motion for summary judgment on the Federal Claims.

Officers have qualified immunity from § 1983 damages for a detention when its unlawfulness was not clearly established at the time.

Akins v. Robb · filed 2020-07-30

Moreover, even if these officers had violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, it was not clearly established that detaining a possible shooting suspect for roughly four to five hours until an investigation was completed that involved numerous witnesses and physical evidence would violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Section 1983 claims against officers are barred by qualified immunity when the officers had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest.

McDowell v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-07-30

Because, at the moment of McDowell’s arrest, Gonzalez had at least arguable probable cause to arrest McDowell, both he and Colon were entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly creating the need to use deadly force when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Estate of Joseph Valverde v. Dodge · filed 2020-07-30

And to the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that Dodge should be liable because he recklessly created the situation that led to the apparent peril, Dodge is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.

A § 1983 damages claim against prison officials may be dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Vandevender v. Captain Walter Sass · filed 2020-07-31

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless Vandevender has plausibly stated both (i) a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and (ii) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Kulkay, 847 F.3d at 642. Because we agree with the district court that Vandevender did not plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment violation, we need not address the clearly established requirement.

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

Downard v. Martin · filed 2020-07-31

To overcome a defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Benway v. Aldi · filed 2020-07-31

Even if Mr. Benway had plausibly alleged violations of his First Amendment rights, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. As established by Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime. Mitchell, 508 U.S. at 489. Moreover, at the time relevant to this action, neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit had established a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim under similar circumstances involving prison officials’ use of social media information for the purpose of inmate Security Risk Group designations. Thus, given “the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct,” it was objectively reasonable for the Defendants to believe their conduct was not unlawful.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the alleged violation was clearly established at the time.

Thorkelson v. Marceno · filed 2020-07-31

Even if Casale did use excessive force, he is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to show that the unlawfulness of his conduct was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Qualified immunity does not protect officials from a § 1983 claim seeking only injunctive relief.

Branham v. Trent · filed 2020-08-03

Inasmuch as Branham seeks only injunctive relief, I cannot find that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, therefore, will deny their motion on that basis.

A defendant may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged violation was not clearly established under similar circumstances.

Mayes v. Blair · filed 2020-08-03

Plaintiff has pointed to no case, and this Court has been unable to locate one, that clearly establishes that, under these or similar circumstances, Defendants’ use of force violated Plaintiff’s rights. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim in Count Two.

Section 1983 false arrest and malicious prosecution claims are subject to qualified immunity when an officer has arguable probable cause.

Quiller v. Officer Daniel Nunez, Shield No. 18750 · filed 2020-08-03

And, in the alternative, for the same reasons that Nunez was entitled to qualified immunity on Quiller’s false arrest claim, he is entitled to qualified immunity on his malicious prosecution claim.

Qualified immunity applies to a § 1983 claim when the defendant’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Santos v. Chambers-Smith · filed 2020-08-03

Similarly, the Court rejects the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts determine whether officers violated a clearly established right.

Donahue v. City of Hazleton, PA · filed 2020-08-03

As such, the court finds that defendants are not shielded from liability based on qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s stated excessive force claim, (Count I, second claim) and that they are not entitled to summary judgment on this basis.

Jail officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the detainee's right was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Ivey v. Audrain County, Missouri · filed 2020-08-04

We hold only that the officers are immune from suit because they did not violate Ivey's clearly established rights.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 conspiracy claim when unsettled law on the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine leaves them without notice that agreements with fellow officers could create liability.

Baude v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2020-08-04

Given the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 cases, the officers could not have reasonably known their actions would open them up to liability for a conspiracy.

Qualified immunity can shield an officer from a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim arising from a traffic stop.

Jamison v. Town of Pelahatchie · filed 2020-08-04

However, after a hearing, the Court requested supplemental briefing to “help . . . determine if McLendon is entitled to qualified immunity on Jamison’s lack of consent and pro- longed stop claims.” ... Officer McClendon’s motion is GRANTED, and the remain- ing claim in this matter will be set for trial in due course.

Qualified immunity protects an official from § 1983 damages when the alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Neilsen v. McElderry · filed 2020-08-05

But assuming for the sake of argument there was a Fifth Amendment violation, the law was not clearly established. A reasonable official would have understood that requiring Mr. Neilsen to submit to a polygraph examination that asked questions similar to those posed to Von Behren would violate the Fifth Amendment. But that same official would not reasonably understand Von Behren to stand for the general proposition that simply requiring a parolee to undergo evaluation and treatment, at the discretion of the team, would also violate the Fifth Amendment.

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

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Engrime · filed 2020-08-05

In light of the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff's forecast of evidence fails to show a constitutional violation, this likewise establishes the Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison doctor from a Section 1983 claim when settled law makes clear that he cannot persist in treatment he knows is ineffective.

Rivera v. Kelley · filed 2020-08-06

The law on that question has been long settled. See Greeno, 414 F.3d at 655. Accordingly, Dr. Kelley is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for excessive force has qualified immunity if the officer did not violate a clearly established right.

Kohorst v. Smith · filed 2020-08-06

Officer Smith’s actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails to establish either a constitutional violation or a violation of a clearly established right.

Allen v. Miller · filed 2020-08-06

The district court correctly held that Mark Miller is entitled to qualified immunity for each of Allen’s three constitutional claims.

State officials have qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages claims when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Smith v. Wolfe · filed 2020-08-06

Smith does not identify, and this Court cannot locate, any precedent that would have placed the moving Defendants on notice that their conduct was constitutionally prohibited. Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Smith’s First Amendment claims under section 1983.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for excessive force cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s account shows an unwarned tackle of a nonthreatening person suspected of a minor offense.

Bertschy v. Janssen · filed 2020-08-07

Viewing the facts in the light most favorably to Mr. Bertschy, Officer Janssen is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when clearly established law prohibited the force alleged against a nonthreatening, nonresisting misdemeanor suspect.

Higginbotham v. Brauer · filed 2020-08-07

At the time of Defendant’s conduct, it was clearly established that a police officer’s tackling to the ground a non-threatening, nonresisting, misdemeanor suspect violates the Fourth Amendment. ... Summary judgment will be denied on the excessive force claim.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes both elements of the qualified immunity test.

Lawhon v. Edwards · filed 2020-08-10

The law dictates that officials are immune from civil liability for their alleged conduct unless both aspects of the qualified immunity test are established.

A sheriff has qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when existing law did not clearly establish that his response to general jail safety risks was unconstitutional.

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn. · filed 2020-08-10

But because the law did not clearly establish the unreasonableness of Jarnagin’s responses to the general safety concerns that Beck alleges, Jarnagin is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Plumlee v. Thomas · filed 2020-08-10

In the case at hand, Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the force utilized by Defendant Thomas violated a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, and, in the alternative, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is granted.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Calhoun v. Wray · filed 2020-08-10

Qualified immunity provides an alternative ground for granting Wray summary judgment. ... It follows that Wray is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the pleaded facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Miller v. Hall · filed 2020-08-11

Therefore, because the individual officers here are entitled to qualified immunity based on the mistaken arrest of Plaintiff pursuant to a valid arrest ... warrant, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED as to Count I.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action may raise a qualified immunity defense again later in the proceedings after its denial at the pleading stage is affirmed.

Newport v. Payton · filed 2020-08-11

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, without prejudice to defendants again raising a qualified immunity defense later in the proceedings.

A § 1983 procedural due process claim based on continued employment may proceed when the complaint alleges facts sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.

Alvarado v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission · filed 2020-08-12

She has made sufficient allegations to overcome the assertion of qualified immunity and proceed further with this case on the procedural due process claim based on her protected property interest in her continued employment.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a prisoner's due process claim when it was not clearly established that a $15 disciplinary fine triggered due process protections.

Roscoe v. Hall · filed 2020-08-12

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Roscoe’s due process claims, and the court agrees. ... In particular, it was not clearly established in January 2018—when Roscoe’s disciplinary conviction proceedings occurred—that a $15 fine would trigger constitutional due process protections.

Government officials are immune from damages under Section 1983 unless they violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Barrett v. Carter · filed 2020-08-12

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability in a § 1983 suit like the one here unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right clearly established at the time of their alleged violation. ... The district court appropriately found that the undisputed facts revealed Kakani did not violate Barrett’s Eighth Amendment rights and the MDOC Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 freedom-of-association claim.

DeFrancesco v. Arizona Board of Regents · filed 2020-08-12

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Additionally, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s freedom of association claim.

Defendants sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Dickerson v. Pressley · filed 2020-08-12

The Court also notes that, because Plaintiff did not establish the violation of a constitutional right, Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities, in any event.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 damages liability when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Sexton v. Hamilton County Government (PLR2) · filed 2020-08-12

Consequently, in absence of a constitutional violation through the Individual Defendants’ use of deadly force, qualified immunity serves as a shield of liability to Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when clearly established law prohibited the force used against a passively resisting person.

Ferguson v. McDonough · filed 2020-08-13

The law proscribing escalation of force on “passively” resisting individuals was well established at the time these events occurred, thus, McDonough is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not require dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges conduct that violated clearly established equal protection law.

Lewis v. Baird · filed 2020-08-14

Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, it would have been clear to the reasonable official that such actions were unconstitutional. Accordingly, defendant is also not entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity at this stage of the proceeding.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when existing precedent does not clearly establish the asserted right in sufficiently similar circumstances.

Stewart v. City of Euclid · filed 2020-08-14

While plaintiff need not provide a case factually on all fours, existing precedent must be similar enough to place the question beyond debate. ... Rhodes is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from an individual-capacity § 1983 excessive-force claim when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Foley v. Graham · filed 2020-08-14

Graham is entitled to qualified immunity from this excessive-force claim because it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the law.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment in a § 1983 suit when disputed testimony could support a constitutional violation and the defendant has not established either prong of the defense.

Buckmon v. Lasley · filed 2020-08-14

Due to conflicting stories, a reasonable jury could find that Lasley violated Buckmon’s rights if the jury credited Buckmon’s testimony. Lasley has not shown that, a matter of law, he is entitled to summary judgment because he has not established either prong of a qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim cannot be resolved before trial when it depends on disputed facts material to the claim.

Jenkins v. Pohl · filed 2020-08-17

The qualified immunity analysis in this case is not sufficiently separable from the merits of the case; therefore, Pohl is not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 claim against an officer if the officer did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established.

McManemy v. Tierney · filed 2020-08-17

For McManemy’s federal claims, it all comes down to whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity, which depends on the answer to two questions. First, did they violate a constitutional right? Second, was the right clearly established? See Morgan, 920 F.3d at 523. If the answer to either question is “no,” we will affirm.

A § 1983 claim against officers cannot be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds unless the complaint establishes that immunity applies.

Vasquez v. City of San Jose · filed 2020-08-17

Therefore, Defendants have not shown that on the face of the complaint they are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Ostipow v. Federspiel · filed 2020-08-18

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a § 1983 claim. It shields a government official from liability so long as his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. ... To the extent there conceivably is merit to the Ostipows’ suggestion that civil asset forfeiture actions specifically should be reviewed under the Takings Clause, no such rule is clearly established, meaning Federspiel is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

A factual dispute about whether officers used fatal force against a detainee can preclude qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim.

Bard v. Brown Cty., Ohio · filed 2020-08-18

Whether under the rubric of excessive force or deliberate indifference, this genuine dispute of material fact over the manner of Goldson’s death should have kept the district court from granting summary judgment to four of the five defendants-appellees (Schadle, Dunning, Wedmore, and Huff) and concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. As to COs Schadle and Dunning, one or both of them strangling Goldson with a hobble strap would subject them both to liability under § 1983.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer from liability for conduct when no clearly established law made its unlawfulness apparent.

Cox v. Wilson · filed 2020-08-19

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.

Officers have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless they violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

Jones v. Schwochert · filed 2020-08-20

“[O]fficers 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.’” ... Accordingly, Jones has not shown that he satisfies the requirements to overcome qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 deadly force claim when the shooting does not violate a clearly established right.

Birkeland v. Jorgenson · filed 2020-08-20

The district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity on the deadly force claim.

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

Ballentine v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department · filed 2020-08-20

Qualified immunity protects government officials from money damages unless (1) the plaintiff presents evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. ... I therefore grant ... Tucker’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the factual record is too limited to establish the defense.

MERRITT v. HARTMAN · filed 2020-08-20

Thus, given this guidance and the lack of a factual record at this stage, it is premature for us to dismiss this matter based on this doctrine. Accordingly, we deny Hartman’s assertion of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim cannot be granted on summary judgment when material facts about the officers’ conduct remain disputed.

Pearson v. Thompson · filed 2020-08-21

Based on the foregoing, genuine issues of material fact exist such that the Court cannot grant summary judgment on the issue of state and federal qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have known that the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Gardner v. Hutson · filed 2020-08-21

Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Reasonable prison officials in defendants’ position would not have known that reassessing plaintiff’s mental health diagnosis and adjusting his treatment accordingly would constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 claim when existing precedent does not clearly establish that the officer’s specific conduct violates a constitutional right.

Abdur-Rahim v. City of Columbus, Ohio · filed 2020-08-26

With no existing precedent that “‘squarely governs’ the specific facts at issue” in this appeal, qualified immunity shields Masters from Abdur-Rahim’s excessive force claim, and we reverse the denial of qualified immunity to Masters.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the alleged violation involved a clearly established federal right.

Siddique v. Laliberte · filed 2020-08-26

Once the defense of qualified immunity is raised, the De- fendants are entitled to dismissal unless (1) Siddique has come forward with facts that, when viewed in a light most favorable to him, constitute a violation of a federal constitu- tional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

In a § 1983 suit, investigating a criminal complaint and making an arrest are discretionary law enforcement duties for qualified immunity purposes.

Hamilton v. City of Lakeland Police Department · filed 2020-08-26

The Defendants, by investigating a criminal complaint and making an arrest, were carrying out quintessential law enforcement duties and thereby exercising discretionary authority.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 false-arrest claim if they pressured a witness to falsely identify the suspect.

Bahena v. City Of Chicago · filed 2020-08-26

The factual disputes also preclude qualified immunity. ... No reasonable officer at the time would have mistakenly believed that pressuring a witness to falsely identify a suspect is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated clearly established rights.

Adam Community Center v. City of Troy · filed 2020-08-26

Accordingly, based on the record presently before the Court, the Court finds that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 malicious prosecution complaint can overcome an officer’s qualified immunity by alleging that the officer knowingly made material false statements to support charges without probable cause.

Hendricks v. Rios · filed 2020-08-27

In stating a claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must also state facts to overcome a claim of qualified immunity. ... Thus, based on the facts and allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffhas sufficiently pleaded facts to defeat Defendant Callahan’s entitlement to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not entitle a prison official to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when a jury could find that he ignored an inmate’s serious head injury in violation of clearly established law.

Rones v. Schlosstein · filed 2020-08-28

Schlosstein effectively did nothing to address the plaintiff’s medical needs. As such, Schlosstein is not entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment is denied on the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against him.

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

Sam Thurmond, Sr. v. Andrews · filed 2020-08-28

Rather, we hold only that the individual jail employees are immune from suit because their actions did not violate clearly established law.

Section 1983 claims against officers and prosecutors are barred by qualified immunity when they had arguable probable cause to make an arrest.

Klein v. Glick · filed 2020-08-28

Considering all the facts confronting the Defendants at the time of Klein’s arrest, I conclude that there was arguable probable cause to arrest him. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Klein’s Section 1983 claims (Counts One and Two).

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law forbids the alleged conduct.

Abella v. Officer Juan F. Rodriguez · filed 2020-08-31

Because the law remains clearly established that police officers may not harass or threaten citizens with unlawful arrest for exercising their First Amendment rights, we again affirm the district court’s order denying qualified immunity.

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

Mondragon v. City of Fremont · filed 2020-08-31

As such, the Court finds that Elena Mondragon’s right not to be shot by officers through the side and back of a vehicle that was neither moving rapidly nor moving in the direction of any officers or bystanders was clearly established at the time of the incident. The Court determines that qualified immunity is not established at this stage of the case.

A government official sued individually under Section 1983 may assert qualified immunity against a damages claim.

Central Specialties, Inc. v. Large · filed 2020-08-31

A government official that is sued under Section 1983 in his individual capacity may raise the defense of qualified immunity. ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the Fourth Amendment claim.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects officers who reasonably believe a valid immigration warrant supplies probable cause for an entry and arrest.

FLORENTINO v. CITY OF NEWARK · filed 2020-08-31

Whether the immigration warrant actually created probable cause for the entry and arrest, the Court finds that the Officer Defendants could have reasonably believed that it did.

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

Turning Point USA at Arkansas v. Rhodes · filed 2020-08-31

The ultimate success of Hoggard’s § 1983 claim, however, depends on whether it was “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood” that, by preventing Hoggard from Union Patio tabling, he or she was violating the First Amendment. ... Granting qualified immunity was therefore appropriate.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the official’s conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Porter v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2020-09-02

Even if Terry had violated Nuriddin’s constitutional rights, he would be entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established law.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer would have known the force violated the Fourth Amendment.

Gomez v. City of Vacaville · filed 2020-09-02

A reasonable officer would have known a strong push or similar tackle was unreasonable where, as here, the suspect (1) did not pose a serious threat to anyone’s safety, (2) was not actively resisting arrest, and (3) the severity of the alleged crime was minimal. Thus, the contours of the law were adequately defined, such that a reasonable officer in Boehm’s position would have known he was violating plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In a Section 1983 suit, a court may require a plaintiff facing a qualified immunity defense to file a detailed reply identifying each defendant’s conduct.

Showers v. City of Bay St. Louis · filed 2020-09-02

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Sheriff Ricky Adams’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Qualified Immunity [47] is granted insofar as a Schultea reply will be required. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to file a reply as contemplated by Schultea v. Wood and Reyes v. Sazan, 168 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 1999) on or before September 18, 2020.

Qualified immunity protects individual defendants from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to plead a constitutional violation or a clearly established right.

Antonio v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Cibola · filed 2020-09-02

Accordingly, Defendants Lucero and Hildenbrant are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Count I and the Court will dismiss Count I without prejudice as to Defendants Lucero and Hildenbrant.

Officers are protected from § 1983 search and arrest claims when they had arguable probable cause.

Barnes v. NYPD Police Officer Joseph Carolan · filed 2020-09-03

Summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper because the undisputed facts showed that the defendants had arguable probable cause to search and arrest Barnes.

An official claiming qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim must first establish discretionary authority; the court then considers whether the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Cantu v. City of Dothan, Alabama · filed 2020-09-03

To be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official must first establish that she was acting within the scope of her discretionary authority. ... Because that is undisputed in this case we proceed to the next steps in the analysis, which are whether the official violated the plaintiff’s (or the plaintiff’s decedent’s) constitutional rights, and, if so, whether decisions of the Supreme Court or of this Court in existence at the time clearly established that it was a violation.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive force claim when, viewing the evidence favorably to the plaintiff, the officers’ conduct violated clearly established law.

Williamson v. National City · filed 2020-09-03

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendants Nguyen and McGouch are not entitled to qualified immunity regarding the pulling of Plaintiff’s arms and hands. The Court denies summary judgment as to excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (claim 1) regarding Defendant Nguyen’s and Defendant McGouch’s pulling of Plaintiff’s arms and hands.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim for a gratuitous blow to a compliant, handcuffed arrestee.

Bellay v. Shue · filed 2020-09-03

The qualified immunity standard is plainly not met for a gratuitous blow struck upon a complying, handcuffed arrestee.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for ordering a dog to bite a handcuffed suspect who is not attempting to flee when the constitutional prohibition is clearly established.

Hammond v. Oakland Cty., Mich. · filed 2020-09-04

Any reasonable officer would have understood that commanding a dog to bite a handcuffed suspect who was not attempting to flee would violate the Fourth Amendment. Cadotte thus is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the bites.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim when no reasonable prison official could believe the challenged conduct was lawful.

Wells v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2020-09-04

Eifert is not entitled to qualified immunity because no prison official could reasonably believe such actions to be lawful.

A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether he violated a clearly established right.

Huntzinger v. Coyle · filed 2020-09-04

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 official immunity under Kentucky state law.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim when a factual dispute remains over whether officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm.

Brown 408842 v. Macauley · filed 2020-09-04

Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims because “the record does not support a finding that Defendants Wright and Macauley violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights” (Obj., ECF No. 137 at PageID.1002). ... Contrary to Defendants’ argument, as discussed above, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that “an issue of fact remains as to whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff” (R&R, ECF No. 135 at PageID.990). This objection is denied.

Qualified immunity can bar a Section 1983 unlawful-seizure claim against a police officer.

Foshey, Steven v. Ekholm, Darren · filed 2020-09-08

For the reasons stated below, I find that Ekholm is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the stop, detention, and arrest of Foshey and I am dismissing Foshey’s claims of unlawful seizure on that ground.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 retaliation claim.

Robinson 602273 v. Hensen · filed 2020-09-08

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff failed to establish a retaliation claim, and that in any event, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges violations of clearly established rights and does not show that their conduct was objectively reasonable.

Mena v. Gutwein · filed 2020-09-08

Accordingly, the Court finds that a grant of qualified immunity for Holland and Gutwein is not warranted at this time.

Public officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 retaliation claim when the right they allegedly violated was clearly established at the time.

Sampson v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2020-09-09

Therefore, we vacate the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Defendants on Sampson’s § 1983 claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, since Defendants were not so entitled.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on a government actor whose conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Lamorie v. Child Protective Services · filed 2020-09-09

Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity at the pleading stage to an officer alleged to have used deadly force against a bicyclist with virtually no justification.

Gonzales v. City Of San Jose · filed 2020-09-09

Additionally, the Court finds that Officer Lezama is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case because Gonzales alleges that Lezama used deadly force despite having virtually no justification for doing so.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 unlawful entry claim when a jury could find that they violated the clearly established prohibition on warrantless home entry without exigent circumstances.

Williams v. Maurer · filed 2020-09-09

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, qualified immunity does not shield Defendants from liability on Plaintiffs’ unlawful entry claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

Carlos Nerio, II v. Evans · filed 2020-09-10

Evans is entitled to qualified immunity unless Appellant Nerio can show two things: first, that Evans violated a statutory or constitutional right, and second, that “the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court does not mandate an order of operations, so we can affirm a qualified-immunity award by answering either question or both. See id. at 236. The district court focused on the second question. We do the same and affirm.

Qualified immunity protects a defendant in a § 1983 suit when no case clearly establishes that the challenged conduct is unlawful.

Anderson v. Byrne · filed 2020-09-10

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendant Parks on the basis of qualified immunity. No case clearly establishes that the conduct at issue here constitutes retaliation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 suits when their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Kenjoh Outoor, LLC v. Marchbanks · filed 2020-09-10

Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 suits so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... Because there is no constitutional violation, Fling is entitled to qualified immunity. Even if Kenjoh’s complaint is construed to allege that Fling acted based on an unconstitutional off-premise/on-premise distinction, he is still entitled to qualified immunity because Kenjoh’s asserted right to be free from such distinction was not clearly established when Fling acted.

A sheriff sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when material factual disputes bear on whether he violated a clearly established right to political expression.

Webb v. Lincoln Parish Sheriffs Office, et · filed 2020-09-11

Viewing all of the disputed material facts in Webb’s favor, we cannot say that the district court erred by finding Stone ineligible for qualified immunity or by denying in part his motion for summary judgment.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Theis v. Yuba County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-09-11

Because the purported constitutional violation pled here did not violate clearly established law, the court need not reach a conclusion about whether a violation actually occurred. Accordingly, defendants Barnhill and Smith are entitled to qualified immunity, and the court will dismiss plaintiffs’ third claim with prejudice.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest if arguable probable cause existed, even without actual probable cause.

Matthews v. McNeil · filed 2020-09-14

In the qualified-immunity context, however, we require only arguable probable cause, not actual probable cause. ... On this record, we conclude that arguable probable cause existed, even if, as Matthews argues, McNeil may have made some missteps along the way.

A jailer who coerces a detainee into nonconsensual sex is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim because the detainee’s right to be free from sexual abuse was clearly established.

Brown v. Flowers · filed 2020-09-14

We conclude that Flowers violated a clearly established right. We have long held that nonconsensual, coerced sex between a jailer and an inmate violates the Constitution.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the right asserted against them was not clearly established.

Bankston v. IDOC · filed 2020-09-14

Bankston, however, does not have a clearly established constitutional right to inmate-led group worship. See West v. Grams, 607 F. App’x 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2015) (acknowledging that “[i]t has never been clearly established that inmates have a right to inmate-led group worship under the First Amendment”). Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and their motion for summary judgment with respect to Count I is granted.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a public official when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the circumstances.

Martin v. Wheeler · filed 2020-09-15

Therefore, the Court denies Martin’s motion for partial summary judgment and grants Wheeler’s motion for summary judgment as to the § 1983 claim because Wheeler is entitled to qualified immunity.

An official may be personally liable under Section 1983, without qualified immunity, for failing to end unconstitutional postrelease supervision after its unlawfulness is clearly established.

Vincent v. Yelich · filed 2020-09-15

For the foregoing reasons, construing all facts in Annucci’s favor and granting him every favorable inference, I find that the undisputed facts and controlling case law establish that he is personally liable for his acts and omissions in failing to promptly end or cure the unconstitutional imposition and enforcement of PRS against plaintiff after Earley II made it clear that such imposition and enforcement of PRS was unconstitutional, and I further conclude that Annucci is not entitled to qualified immunity for such acts and omissions.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when every reasonable official would have known their conduct violated a clearly established due process right.

Rider v. Tristan · filed 2020-09-16

The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Rider’s favor, defendants Tristan, Neven, Fiero, and Nash are not entitled to qualified immunity on Rider’s due process claim (Count II of the second amended complaint) because Rider’s right to periodic review, notice of hearings, and an opportunity to be heard was clearly established, and every reasonable official would have known that housing Rider in administrative segregation for nineteen months without meaningful review of his placement would violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

A prison hearing officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-intervene claim when no clearly established law required intervention in another officer’s alleged retaliation.

ARMSTRONG v. FURMAN · filed 2020-09-16

Thus, Dupont has qualified immunity on the instant the failure-to-intervene claim.

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

Mpaka v. Arcey · filed 2020-09-17

Dr. Arcey is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against police officers are barred by qualified immunity unless the right was clearly established and a reasonable officer would have known the conduct violated it.

Morgan v. Cochise County Board of Supervisors · filed 2020-09-17

Qualified immunity protects police officers from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an abuse of discretion violating civil rights unless the legal right was “clearly established” at the time, and a reasonable person in the same position would have known that what he did violated that right.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against an officer when the officer’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Monterroso v. City of San Diego · filed 2020-09-17

As a result, Purdy did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights and is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison officer from a § 1983 claim when the evidence permits a finding that he encouraged an inmate to attack the plaintiff, recklessly disregarding the plaintiff’s safety.

Jackson v. Uptegrove · filed 2020-09-17

Taking the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most beneficial to Plaintiff, Defendant Uptegrove’s alleged actions would constitute a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s safety, thus falling outside the bounds of qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their actions were appropriate under the circumstances.

Mobley v. Matayeva · filed 2020-09-17

The County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force because, based on the facts known to them at that time, it was objectively reasonable for them to believe that their actions in attempting to remove the bag of drugs secreted in Plaintiff’s rectum were necessary and appropriate to protect Plaintiff’s health and well-being.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment when disputed facts could support a finding that the defendant violated a constitutional right.

Colson v. City of Alcoa, Tennessee · filed 2020-09-17

As the Court has already determined above that there are genuine issues of material fact to where a reasonable jury could find that Nurse Russell was deliberately indifferent as to Plaintiff’s knee injury, the Court declines to grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official would not have known that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Henson v. Corizon Health LLC · filed 2020-09-18

Accordingly, Defendants Williams and Miller are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court will dismiss ... Plaintiffs First Amendment claim against them.