42 U.S.C. § 1983

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the allegations plausibly show they joined an arrest without probable cause.

Niewolak v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MI · filed 2020-09-18

As any officer would know of the settled constitutional requirement that an arrest must be based on probable cause, Holcomb and Edwards are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s unreasonable seizure and arrest claim at this motion to dismiss stage.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows a violation of a clearly established right.

A.A. v. Otsego Local Schools Board of Education · filed 2020-09-18

Ruckstuhl is not entitled to summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity because that right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Municipalities cannot claim qualified immunity against Section 1983 claims.

Stella v. Davis County · filed 2020-09-21

But Davis County is not entitled to qualified immunity because qualified immunity is unavailable to municipalities.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 retaliation claim when disputed facts could show that a prison official threatened an inmate for intending to file a grievance.

(PC) Wells v. Gonzales · filed 2020-09-21

Accordingly, based on the evidence before the court on summary judgment, the undersigned agrees that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in her favor on qualified immunity grounds with respect to plaintiff’s retaliation claim.

A defendant sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Prince v. Sheriff of Carter County · filed 2020-09-21

Miller asserts qualified immunity as to this claim as well. The court employs the same analysis described above and finds plaintiff has failed to demonstrate both (1) violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the constitutional right (stated at the proper level of specificity) was clearly established.

A circuit clerk lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for firing a deputy clerk because of political association when established law gave fair warning that the firing was unconstitutional.

Billiter v. Jones · filed 2020-09-22

Accordingly, the proper question is whether a reasonable circuit clerk should have known that terminating a clerk’s office employee because of their political association was violative of the law. The Court finds that a reasonable circuit clerk should have known.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show that the allegedly violated right was clearly established to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity.

Mayfield v. Butler Snow, L.L.P. · filed 2020-09-22

But in the context of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that an allegedly violated right was clearly established. See, e.g., Wigginton v. Jones, 964 F.3d 329, 338 (5th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff-Appellees have not met that burden.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited the officers’ use of unnecessary force.

Krell v. Braightmeyer · filed 2020-09-22

We further conclude that, at the time of Krell’s arrest, the law clearly prohibited Defendants from “using unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force to seize a secured, unarmed citizen.” Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520, 532 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, we affirm the denial of qualified immunity on Krell’s excessive force claims.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that each defendant personally knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm to an inmate.

NELSON v. CORRECTHEALTH MUSCOGEE LLC · filed 2020-09-22

Accordingly, Plaintiffs adequately allege that the four named Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a known risk of harm posed by Hatchett, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Section 1983 damages claims against police officers are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Lovett v. Neff · filed 2020-09-22

Neff is therefore entitled to qualified immunity and judgment as a matter of law.

Private medical personnel in prisons are not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims.

Reese v. Trost · filed 2020-09-22

Moldenhauer is also not entitled to qualified immunity because the Seventh Circuit does not extend such immunity to private medical personnel in prisons, see Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 734 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrections, 746 F.3d 782, 794 (7th Cir. 2014)), and even if Moldenhauer was entitled to such immunity, his conduct in ignoring and failing to treat Plaintiff’s complaints violates clearly established law under the Eighth Amendment.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Stith v. Hennings Jr. · filed 2020-09-22

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s federal § 1983 claims.

An officer is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Teel v. Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Lozada · filed 2020-09-23

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Dr. Teel, a reasonable jury could find that Officer Lozada violated Mrs. Teel’s clearly established constitutional right to be free from the excessive use of force. Officer Lozada therefore is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to rebut the defense and no settled law gave them notice that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Narro v. Edwards · filed 2020-09-23

Although the officers could have used less forceful conduct, there was no settled authority to put them on notice that their use of force violated Mr. Narro’s constitutional rights.

A § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Price v. Sanders · filed 2020-09-23

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the decision in Beal did not come until approximately four months after Defendant Finney’s comments, and therefore Beal could not have possibly apprised Finney of the unconstitutionality of his conduct at the time it occurred. ... Consequently, Defendant Finney is entitled to qualified immunity and his request for summary judgment is granted.

Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability under § 1983 when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Daniels v. Rester · filed 2020-09-23

... summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is warranted here.

Officials seeking qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim must develop their defense; a conclusory assertion does not warrant summary judgment.

McCain v. Jenkins · filed 2020-09-23

The Magistrate was not required to “put flesh on [the] bones” of that argument, and this Court likewise declines to develop Defendants’ argument on their behalf. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ objection as to the denial of qualified immunity is OVERRULED.

Qualified immunity shields officials from damages under § 1983 unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

O'Brien v. Murphy · filed 2020-09-24

In any event, Plaintiff does not object to the R&R’s finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's claim. ... Dismissal is therefore warranted on this independent basis.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Simpson v. Tri Valley Community Unit School District No. 3 an Illinois Local Governmental Entity · filed 2020-09-24

Regardless of when Derges learned that J.S. was bullying W.J., or whether Derges searched emails, the entire camera roll, and social media applications, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing a clearly established right existed and was violated by the search.

At the motion to dismiss stage, a § 1983 plaintiff can overcome qualified immunity by plausibly pleading a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Daywitt v. Harpstead · filed 2020-09-24

And given that the instant Motion is for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Daywitt need only plausibly plead the clearly established constitutional violation.

Government officials sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities may be entitled to qualified immunity.

Brewer v. Geerdes · filed 2020-09-25

The claims against the defendants are dismissed because they are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer who uses gratuitous force against a surrendered, unresisting arrestee is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim.

Kidis v. Reid · filed 2020-09-25

Assuming the issue is live, Moran’s argument nonetheless fails. ... Once Moran had physical control over the surrendering and unresisting Kidis, Moran’s subsequent aggression violated Kidis’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a government official when the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Cates v. Stroud · filed 2020-09-25

However, we also hold that Laurian, who conducted the strip search, is protected from a damages suit by qualified immunity. ... Qualified immunity protects government officials acting in good faith and under the color of state law from suit under § 1983.

Qualified immunity provides a ground to dismiss a section 1983 claim when the complaint alleges no harmful act violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Escalante v. San Francisco Community College District, and Board of Trustees · filed 2020-09-25

Here, Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend her complaint, and has failed to plead even one allegation of a harmful act that would constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, while the Court does not rely solely upon common law qualified immunity for dismissal, the Court finds that this is a second independent ground for dismissal of Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against SFCCD and the Individual Defendants.

A deputy is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim if the deputy knew of a substantial and particularized risk of serious harm to an inmate and failed to protect him.

Davis v. Bradshaw · filed 2020-09-25

If Deputy Thompkins was aware of a substantial and particularized risk of serious harm to Davis and failed to act to protect him, Deputy Thompkins is not entitled to qualified immunity. ... Upon reconsideration and in light of the new evidence, there is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment on the failure-to-protect claim against Deputy Thompkins.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed evidence could show that an official knew of a serious risk to the plaintiff and failed to protect him.

Goss v. Cothran · filed 2020-09-28

Ultimately, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections, and, for the reasons thoroughly explained by the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that Cothran is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining claim; nor is Cothran entitled to a finding of qualified immunity at this time.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliatory arrest claim when controlling circuit precedent clearly established the asserted right at the time of arrest.

Thomas v. Cassia County · filed 2020-09-29

After the incident, the Supreme Court in Nieves left in place the law, previously recognized in the Ninth Circuit, that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim could be pursued for arrests supported by probable cause but which violated the First Amendment. In light of this, the Court denies Akers’ Motion to Reconsider insomuch that the Court continues to hold that, at the time of the arrest, it was clearly established in Akers’ jurisdiction that arresting an individual in retaliation for his speech violates said individual’s First Amendment rights.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim alleging a racially motivated suspension and arrest when the officers do not dispute that the alleged conduct violates clearly established rights.

Jackson v. Joliet Police Department, The · filed 2020-09-29

Suspending and arresting a person because that person is Black is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rosado and Perona do not argue otherwise. ... Therefore, Perona’s and Rosado’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the evidence permits a finding that the official ignored a known serious risk to an inmate and the duty to reduce that risk was clearly established.

Garcia v. Baldwin · filed 2020-09-29

At the time of the events in question, it was clearly established that a prison official who is aware of a serious risk of substantial harm to an inmate is required by the Eighth Amendment to take steps to reduce that risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. Defendant Molenhour is not entitled to summary judgment on his qualified immunity defense.

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

Pugh v. Thigpen · filed 2020-09-29

In addition, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the plaintiff’s allegations regarding denial of adequate medical care and unconstitutionally poor conditions in his cell.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity from a warrantless child removal claim when reasonable officers could disagree about whether the known facts justified emergency removal.

Lowther v. Children Youth and Families Department · filed 2020-09-29

Plaintiffs have not articulated how they overcome the Court’s granting of qualified immunity upon holding that officers of reasonable competence could disagree as to whether emergency circumstances justified removing the Lowther children in light of the information available to the officers at the time.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Falkner v. Barkley · filed 2020-09-30

Under federal law, qualified immunity only applies to Brown in his individual capacity. ... Because the amended complaints sufficiently plead facts supporting a reasonable inference that Brown violated Anderson’s and Falkner’s clearly-established Eighth Amendment rights, Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established rights.

Anderson v. Barkley · filed 2020-09-30

Because the amended complaints sufficiently plead facts supporting a reasonable inference that Brown violated Anderson’s and Falkner’s clearly-established Eighth Amendment rights, Brown is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 false arrest claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show no arguable probable cause and the right was clearly established.

Doe v. Leach · filed 2020-09-30

At this stage of the litigation, qualified immunity does not shield Leach.

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

Wilkins v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-09-30

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants are all entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim under § 1983.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when existing precedent would not have put a reasonable officer on notice that the challenged force was unreasonable.

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-09-30

On these facts, and given the existing precedent in this jurisdiction, a reasonable officer would not have been on notice that Plaintiff’s take down was objectively unreasonable. ... As such, Officer Reynolds retains his qualified immunity for the take down maneuver he performed on Plaintiff.

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

Webster v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville · filed 2020-09-30

Because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a required element of the constitutional violation, he has failed to meet his burden of showing that Defendants violated that constitutional right. Therefore, he has failed to plead facts which, if true, would overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff’s supported account shows a violation of clearly established law.

Daugherty v. Hurst · filed 2020-09-30

Therefore, at this stage in the litigation, Officer Hurst is not entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 / Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on officials protected by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Naisha v. Metzger · filed 2020-09-30

Since there was in 2018 no clearly established constitutional right for transgender inmates to be searched by staff members of the same gender with which the inmate identifies, Defendants are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity as matter of law.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when they have not violated a statutory or constitutional right.

Green v. Stanton · filed 2020-09-30

There was no violation of a statutory or constitutional right, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when evidence viewed in the plaintiff’s favor could show that officers gratuitously struck a neutralized arrestee.

Clark v. City of Center Line · filed 2020-09-30

Weighing the record in the light most favorable to Kimberly, this Court finds that qualified immunity does not bar her excessive-force claim.

Qualified immunity cannot support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material facts remain disputed about whether an officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

CARPENTER v. CHARD, JR. · filed 2020-09-30

Thus, qualified immunity cannot attach at this time and summary judgment must be denied.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged conduct is something no reasonably competent officer could consider lawful.

Ali v. Ramos · filed 2020-09-30

No officer of reasonable competence could dispute that twisting a handcuff key in the manner alleged by Ali is objectively unreasonable in these circumstances. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is DENIED at this time.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Wilson v. Gregory · filed 2020-09-30

The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from § 1983 actions unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that Deputies Gregory and Walsh are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit cannot be resolved on summary judgment when disputed facts determine whether an officer violated clearly established law.

Kurland v. City of Providence · filed 2020-09-30

As a result, the Court cannot determine if the Officer Perez’s actions are entitled to the protection of qualified immunity or if they were violative of a “clearly established” law.

An officer who affirmatively aids a private repossession is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibited that conduct.

Hyman v. Capital One Auto Finance · filed 2020-10-01

Those actions fall within the guidance of Harvey and Abbott, and the rule that an officer may not aid in a private repossession was clearly established when Devlin arrived at Hyman’s home.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when allegations that he fabricated evidence to bring false charges show objectively unreasonable conduct under clearly established law.

Tyson v. Daspit · filed 2020-10-01

Under Tyson’s version of events, Daspit falsely claimed in a probable cause affidavit that Tyson attempted to take his knife in order to have false charges brought against Tyson and prolong his detention. The allegations set forth in the Complaint are sufficient to show that the violation of Tyson’s constitutional right to due process was objectively unreasonable given clearly established precedent at the time of his arrest.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that officers violated a clearly established right.

ADAMI v. COUNTY OF BUCKS · filed 2020-10-01

Having found Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that Officers Kircher, Rooney, and Columbia violated Adami’s Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care under § 1983 and his right to adequate medical care was clearly established at the time of the misconduct, the Court finds Officers Kircher, Rooney, and Columbia are not entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the Complaint.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the conduct violates no constitutional right and no clearly established law prohibits it.

Robinson v. Alameda County · filed 2020-10-02

On the record before the Court, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendant Jackson prevails as a matter of law on his qualified immunity defense because, as discussed above, the record establishes no Fourteenth Amendment violation and because, at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law requiring that correctional officials use x-rays to determine whether an inmate had swallowed contraband.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a Section 1983 claim when material factual disputes determine whether the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Rutledge v. Hatton · filed 2020-10-02

Accordingly, defendant Lam is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the record currently before the Court. Any such entitlement will depend on the resolution of disputed issues of fact.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no constitutional right.

Montgomery v. Centralia Correctional Center · filed 2020-10-02

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because, even when the facts are taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he engaged in no conduct that violated Plaintiff’s constitutionally-protected rights.

Section 1983 does not afford an officer qualified immunity when no reasonable officer could believe the alleged conduct was lawful.

Vincent v. San Francisco Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-10-05

Assuming that Plaintiff’s allegations are true (a required assumption in the summary judgment context), the court finds that no reasonable officer in Defendant Tauscher’s position could have conceivably believed that the alleged conduct involved in this case was lawful; thus, qualified immunity is inappropriate under the circumstances.

A medical professional sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law required suicide watch or more restrictive housing for a pretrial detainee who denied being suicidal.

Wang v. County of Santa Clara · filed 2020-10-05

The Court finds Defendant Choi is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a pre-trial detainee with Mr. Fan’s characteristics and prescribed anti-depressant medication who denies being suicidal should be placed on suicide watch or in more restrictive housing.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right that a reasonable person would have known.

Trackwell v. County of Lancaster · filed 2020-10-06

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. ... Upon our review of the record, we find no plain error in the trial court’s determination that appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity in regard to Trackwell’s tort claims and had not waived such immunity, and that Kelly and Lacey were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Courser v. Mich. House of Representatives · filed 2020-10-06

Because Courser failed to plausibly allege a violation of a constitutional right, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim when the complaint fails to allege a violation of a clearly established right.

Stanko v. Brewer · filed 2020-10-08

Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiff’s claims will therefore be dismissed.

Parole officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when no clearly established law requires them to arrange an offender’s release from jail for medical appointments.

Arnold v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-10-09

We agree with the district court that “because [Arnold] has failed to meet his burden of establishing that Defendants Gonzalez and Gatchell have violated clearly established law . . . they are entitled to qualified immunity.”

Section 1983 allows a claim against an officer for a seizure through legal process unsupported by probable cause; qualified immunity does not shield objectively unreasonable conduct.

Trail v. Cressell · filed 2020-10-13

Under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and in light of Inv. Cressell’s failure to perform basic investigative tasks to determine the identity of his target, the court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that probable cause existed justifying a grant of qualified immunity and, effectively, final judgment in favor of the defendant.

Qualified immunity does not protect officials from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law would have put a reasonable official on notice that the alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Hubbard v. Nestor · filed 2020-10-13

In light of these facts, which this court lacks authority to review, we have no trouble concluding a reasonable detention facility officer in Defendants’ shoes would have known their actions violated Plaintiff’s due process rights. We are thus unable to grant Defendants the immunity they seek.

Backup officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when reasonable officers in their position could believe there was probable cause for the arrest.

Ruda v. Boisvert · filed 2020-10-13

Because reasonable officers arriving at Glory Days as backup officers could have believed that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Ruda for DUI, Officer Bettencourt and Geiger are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Ruda’s unlawful arrest claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the court cannot rule out a constitutional violation.

Nichols v. Gamewell · filed 2020-10-13

For the reasons set forth above, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that no constitutional violation occurred. Accordingly, Gamewell’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is also denied.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional law.

DeHerrera v. Kozak · filed 2020-10-14

Under the totality of the circumstances, and judging defendants’ actions from their perspective at the time of the investigation, see Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, we conclude that they did not violate the Fourth Amendment, certainly not clearly established Fourth Amendment law. We therefore agree with the district court’s conclusion that both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when it was not clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

B Legal, Inc. v. Torres · filed 2020-10-15

The district court properly determined that Officer Torres was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that Officer Torres’ conduct violated B Legal’s First Amendment rights.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Taylor v. Stevens · filed 2020-10-15

Even viewing the program in the light most favorable to Taylor, as we must on motion for summary judgment, the A1-3 program is not factually similar enough to any behavioral change program we’ve held triggers a liberty interest to constitute clearly established law. ... Therefore, the defendants are entitled to QI.

An officer is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibited the conduct under the facts viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Murrietta-Golding v. City of Fresno · filed 2020-10-15

Although Murrietta-Golding was in headlong flight, the law nevertheless was clearly established in 2017 that the use of deadly force in these circumstances was unconstitutional. ... Therefore, summary judgment with respect to the qualified immunity defense is inappropriate.

An individual-capacity Section 1983 claim is subject to qualified immunity when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Washington v. O'Neal · filed 2020-10-15

With respect to the individual capacity claim under Section 1983, Defendant asserts the defense of qualified immunity. ... Absent that, Plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded the objective component, and qualified immunity is appropriate.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Byers v. Smith · filed 2020-10-15

For this reason, the Court finds that Byers has not met his burden of alleging a plausible violation of a constitutional right and, therefore, qualified immunity shields Smith from the Fourth Amendment claim.

When officials defending a § 1983 claim show they acted within their discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply.

Stewart v. Johnson · filed 2020-10-16

Because Defendants acted within the scope of their discretionary authority, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that qualified immunity does not apply.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the evidence shows no violation of a constitutional right.

Henderson v. McClain · filed 2020-10-19

The court concludes that McClain should enjoy qualified immunity on all three claims because the uncontested evidence—specifically, the body-camera footage—does not show a violation of any constitutional right.

Prosecutorial approval does not give officers qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when they omit material information from an arrest-warrant affidavit.

Wheeler v. Searcy Arkansas, City of · filed 2020-10-19

Under these circumstances, even with McCoy’s stamp of approval, no well-trained officer in defendants’ position could reasonably but mistakenly conclude that it was lawful to omit information about Langley’s recantations and the lack of physical evidence.

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

Powell v. Shelton · filed 2020-10-19

Defendants Brown and Shelton are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Count I of the First Amended Complaint alleging a violation of Decedent Powell’s civil rights by using excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed for the arrest.

Harrington-Wall v. City of Monroe, NC · filed 2020-10-20

Harrison acted reasonably in investigating the crime, and any deficiencies in the evidence or investigation were not so glaring as to deny Harrison the protection of qualified immunity.

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

Ventura v. Rutledge · filed 2020-10-22

Officer Rutledge is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity defeats a Section 1983 claim when the official violated a constitutional right but that right was not clearly established at the time.

Cotropia v. Chapman · filed 2020-10-22

Joseph Cotropia sued Mary Chapman, an investigator for the Texas Medical Board (“TMB”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for searching his medical office and seizing documents without a warrant. ... Thus, at that time, it was not clearly established that her search per §§ 153.007(a), 168.052, 179.4(a), and 195.3 was unconstitutional.

Section 1983 permits a false arrest claim against an officer who lacks arguable probable cause and is not entitled to qualified immunity when the right was clearly established.

Bickford v. Hensley · filed 2020-10-23

Accordingly, Deputy Hensley is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s false arrest claim.

In a § 1983 suit against multiple officers, qualified immunity must be assessed separately based on each officer’s own conduct.

Taylor v. Davidson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · filed 2020-10-26

The district court therefore erred in failing to individually assess whether Butler, Steen, LeMaster, and Voyles violated Taylor’s clearly established rights.

Social workers sued under § 1983 may be denied qualified immunity for warrantless child removal when disputed facts bear on whether exigent circumstances justified it.

Garcia v. County of San Diego · filed 2020-10-26

The district court properly held there were disputed issues of material facts precluding the grant of qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claim that the warrantless removal of the children from their parents’ custody was unlawful. On Plaintiffs’ other two claims, however, qualified immunity should have been granted to the county officials.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts provide no basis to grant it.

Contreras v. Nogales, City of · filed 2020-10-26

There are no facts alleged by the Plaintiff upon which this Court could rely to grant qualified immunity for the Defendants. The Court denies the Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

An officer ordinarily receives qualified immunity from § 1983 liability unless a prior case held that similar conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Cortesluna v. Leon · filed 2020-10-27

We have interpreted those instructions to mean that liability does not attach unless a case exists in which a police officer acting under similar circumstances was ... held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Jaudon v. Sasser · filed 2020-10-28

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Jaudon’s unreasonable-search and malicious-prosecution claims, and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Section 1983 does not entitle an officer to summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts bear on whether the force used was objectively reasonable.

Macareno v. City of New York · filed 2020-10-28

Accordingly, the defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the force used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, precluding an award of summary judgment on the state and federal use of excessive force causes of action, and the cause of action alleging violations of 42 USC § 1983 insofar as asserted against the individual defendants ( see Holland v City of Poughkeepsie , 90 AD3d at 844; cf. Harris v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1333, 1335-1336). For the same reason, Officer Rendon was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity ( see Williams v City of New York , 129 AD3d 1066, 1067).

Prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for denying a sincerely requested religious diet when precedent clearly established the inmate’s right and no legitimate penological interest justifies the denial.

Thomas v. Baca · filed 2020-10-28

These precedents are sufficiently similar to the case before us to put prison officials on notice that, when an inmate holds sincere religious beliefs and requests a diet rooted in those beliefs, refusing to accommodate that request violates the inmate’s First Amendment rights unless the refusal is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.

Section 1983 defendants may assert qualified immunity against Fourth Amendment unlawful-search claims.

CORRADI v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD · filed 2020-10-28

For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the Defendants, who were Plaintiff’s parole officers, are protected by qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment illegal search claims.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show that an official acted objectively unreasonably in light of a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity.

Youmans v. Beauregard Torres, III · filed 2020-10-29

Youmans presented no competent summary judgment evidence showing that Warden Juge’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of Youmans’s clearly established constitutional right to timely release from jail, assuming that Youmans was in fact being detained beyond the expiration of his sentence.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a First Amendment claim based on excessive force during an arrest when that specific right was not clearly established.

MOTON v. OFFICER BRANDON HARRIS · filed 2020-10-29

Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in violation of the First Amendment.

A qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim cannot be decided at this stage when material facts remain disputed.

Edwards v. White · filed 2020-10-30

Moreover, because the court finds material facts in dispute, NP Parks’ qualified immunity defense cannot be decided at this stage of the proceedings.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law did not give them notice that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Phelps v. Carlson · filed 2020-10-30

We hold that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, therefore, to a judgment in their favor.

Section 1983 officers cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether their use of force was objectively reasonable.

Harrison v. Kennedy · filed 2020-10-30

This reasoning prevents the Court from granting Kennedy and Pereira qualified immunity here. The parties dispute much of the incident, including the events leading to the Plaintiff’s exit from the car.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 First Amendment claim even if a violation is assumed.

Mitchell v. Cuomo · filed 2020-10-30

Magistrate Judge Stewart also concludes that, even if Defendants Mahuta and Miller had violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. ... Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the other issues raised in the Plaintiff’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart for the reasons stated in the Report- Recommendation.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that each officer knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and responded with deliberate indifference.

Carlito-Garcias v. City of Fort Worth, Texas · filed 2020-10-30

Movants are entitled to qualified immunity unless Plaintiff shows that each of them had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to Lowe and responded with deliberate indifference. Hare, 74 F.3d at 650. This she has failed to do.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages against an officer whose conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Quinones v. City Of New York · filed 2020-11-01

Because Officer Fernandez did not violate a clearly established right, he is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive-force claim.

Qualified immunity in § 1983 actions applies to individual capacity claims for monetary damages, but does not defend against claims for injunctive or declaratory relief or official capacity claims.

Sexton v. City of Colorado Springs, Colorado · filed 2020-11-02

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

Qualified immunity protects officials from § 1983 malicious prosecution liability when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated clearly established law.

MAY v. PRITCHETT · filed 2020-11-02

The individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on May’s Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim.

A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim against a government official must overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of a clearly established right.

Yehia v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-02

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that Sawyer is not entitled to qualified immunity and the ... § 1983 count against Sawyer shall be dismissed with prejudice.

For qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim, a district court opinion cannot clearly establish the law.

Hammonds v. Theakston · filed 2020-11-03

Because it is a district court opinion, Flowers is insufficient to clearly establish the law for Hammonds’s claim.

Government officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Buck Ryan v. Blackwell · filed 2020-11-03

Furthermore, because Ryan failed to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, he is not able to overcome qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when probable cause supports the arrest warrant and the officer did not fabricate evidence in the warrant affidavit.

Strolis v. Heise · filed 2020-11-03

Because we conclude Deputy Heise had probable cause to believe Mr. Strolis was involved in criminal activity and Deputy Heise did not fabricate evidence included in his warrant affidavit, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Deputy Heise based on qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct was not clearly established.

Lopes-Salas v. Parson · filed 2020-11-03

Officer Parson is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts establish no constitutional violation.

Lee v. Stone · filed 2020-11-03

Accordingly, there is no underlying Fourth Amendment violation, and Deputy Lakey is entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts determine whether the officer violated a clearly established right.

Clark v. DeKalb County Sheriff · filed 2020-11-03

These factual disputes likewise preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

A municipal defendant cannot assert qualified immunity on behalf of individual officers it does not represent in a § 1983 claim against them.

Bell v. Southfield · filed 2020-11-03

The Court thus construes Defendant’s argument on the doctrine of qualified immunity as an attempt to argue on behalf of individuals it does not presently represent. In short, Defendant’s argument for the application of qualified immunity is not an argument it can make.

Qualified immunity does not entitle an officer to summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a jury could find that the officer used excessive force without justification.

Ferguson v. Lamora · filed 2020-11-04

In this case, a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Lamora used excessive force against Ferguson without having a reasonable basis for doing so. ... Accordingly, Officer Lamora is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Moses v. Lamb · filed 2020-11-04

Accordingly, the Court finds qualified immunity proper for lack of clearly established law.

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

Evans v. Lindley · filed 2020-11-05

Evans’s Fourth Amendment wrongful detention claim fails, because he does not allege facts or present record evidence that could show that Lindley violated clearly established law.

Defendants in a Section 1983 case are protected by qualified immunity if their actions did not violate clearly established law or they reasonably believed their actions complied with that law.

Keenan v. Hoffman-Rosenfeld · filed 2020-11-05

A defendant is protected by the qualified immunity defense in a Section 1983 case if "(a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law." ... Accordingly, both sets of defendants were protected by qualified immunity.

Officers who rely on a duly enacted statute are ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

(PC) Bowell v. California Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-06

When, as is true here, officers “act[] in reliance on a duly-enacted statute or ordinance,” they are “ordinarily entitled to qualified immunity.”

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the facts viewed favorably to the plaintiffs show violations of clearly established constitutional rights.

Gaddis v. Harrison · filed 2020-11-06

As the facts taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs establish violations of Plaintiffs’ clearly-established constitutional rights, qualified immunity does not shield Harrison from Plaintiffs’ unreasonable seizure and excessive force claims.

A § 1983 claim against an officer may involve qualified immunity, which requires a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; a state battery claim does not resolve that issue.

Sanchez v. Rushton · filed 2020-11-06

To establish a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant acted under color of state law to deprive the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. ... The most important distinction between this case and the state case is that under state law, an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. A plaintiff alleging a state battery claim does not have to demonstrate that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established.

In a § 1983 qualified immunity claim, a jury resolves disputed facts about who altered legal advice and why.

Epperson v. Smith · filed 2020-11-10

However, determining who altered the pertinent advice and the person’s purpose, or lack thereof, in doing so would require a factfinder to make credibility determinations and draw legitimate inferences from the facts presented. Furthermore, as the district court explained, the question of who altered the advice and why is outcome-determinative because the person who altered the advice would be entitled to qualified immunity if the alteration was a reasonable mistake. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order as it pertains to which matters are reserved for the jury.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a jury could find that he used gratuitous force in violation of a clearly established right.

Masciari v. Town of Belmont · filed 2020-11-10

In addition, punching an arrestee without any rationale violates a clearly established right, which a reasonable officer in Officer Benoit’s shoes would have known at the time of the incident.

Section 1983 allows a government officer to claim qualified immunity unless the officer violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Barnett v. Dep't of Children's Services · filed 2020-11-12

A government officer is entitled to qualified immunity for claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the officer (1) violates a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct was “clearly established at the time.” ... All told, Smithwick was entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officials are entitled to qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated the asserted right.

Johnson v. City of Saginaw · filed 2020-11-13

Because “existing law” did not place “the constitutionality of the officer’s conduct ‘beyond debate,’” we conclude that Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on Johnson’s substantive due process claim.

An officer is protected from individual liability under § 1983 by qualified immunity unless the officer violated clearly established law.

Sims v. Marion County, Alabama · filed 2020-11-16

Under qualified immunity, Webb is only liable under § 1983 if his actions violated “clearly established” law. ... No binding authority would have put Webb on notice of a constitutional violation; therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars monetary damages under § 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances the defendant faced.

Ernest Baker, III v. Odoc · filed 2020-11-19

The district court correctly concluded that Young is entitled to qualified immunity on Baker’s First Amendment claim for monetary damages.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when the evidence could show that an officer used clearly unlawful force against a person who posed no immediate threat or flight risk and offered, at most, passive resistance.

Kendall v. Smith · filed 2020-11-19

Accordingly, Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation, and summary judgment on Kendall’s claim against him is unwarranted.

Supervisors are not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that they directed conduct violating clearly established constitutional rights.

Firman v. Conrad · filed 2020-11-20

Firman and Parker have therefore met their burden of showing that Conrad and Hibbs are not entitled to a defense of qualified immunity against the § 1983 claims at this stage.

A jail nurse is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when her care does not violate a detainee’s constitutional rights.

Ortez v. Wise County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-11-20

Applying the law to the facts in this case and viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Ortez, the nonmoving party, the summary judgment evidence demonstrates there was no constitutional violation by Sartor, such that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive force claim when a jury could find that officers used gratuitous force against a nonresisting person in violation of clearly established law.

Haggard v. Montgomery · filed 2020-11-23

To close, the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Correctional officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff raises no triable issue that they were deliberately indifferent to a suicide risk.

Hall v. Bilskey · filed 2020-11-23

The Court finds that although Plaintiff’s attempt at self-harm was of course tragic, Plaintiff has not presented facts which raise any triable issue as to whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety or well-being. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a state actor from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibits intentionally injuring a civil detainee as punishment, including during a basketball game.

Smith v. Oreol · filed 2020-11-24

There is no sense to a ruling, however, that the cases only establish the prohibition against the use of intentional excessive force in the back of police cars and in prison cells but not anywhere else. ... Accordingly, we reverse the district court as to summary judgment for the defendant on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts could show that officers used clearly unlawful excessive force.

Gardner v. Brady · filed 2020-11-24

Thus, “historical facts” critical to determining qualified immunity are in dispute, and qualified immunity is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability under § 1983 when a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest was lawful based on the facts known at the time.

Nottage v. Sevier County, Tennessee · filed 2020-11-24

Therefore, Coleman has qualified immunity and summary judgment will be GRANTED in his favor on Nottage’s claim under § 1983.

A Section 1983 plaintiff need not plead facts overcoming qualified immunity, and a court may address that defense before merits discovery.

Winter v. Richman · filed 2020-11-25

Notwithstanding the lack of a pleading burden on qualified immunity (see DI. 69 at 9), as Plaintiff recognizes “the Court may order Plaintiff to supplement her pleadings or may order discovery” on the issue of qualified immunity (id.). ... In this case, the Court has concluded that it should resolve the qualified immunity defense before this case moves into merits-related discovery.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 damages claim when the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Routt v. Howry · filed 2020-11-25

We agree with the district court that there was no clearly established law indicating that defendants’ actions were unconstitutional and therefore defendants were entitled to dismissal of Routt’s amended complaint based on qualified immunity.

Factual disputes about whether officers acted objectively reasonably preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim.

Cayruth v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2020-11-25

The existence of triable issues of fact with respect to whether the police evaluations at issue, such as the evaluation of probable cause to arrest and requisite suspicion to perform a strip search, were objectively reasonable precludes an award of summary judgment in favor of Antonini, Vitelli, and Fegan on the ground of qualified immunity ( see Williams v City of New York , 153 AD3d 1301, 1304).

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged facts show no violation of a constitutional right.

BEY v. KRANZ · filed 2020-11-25

Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this and all other claims because none of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. (See D.E. 26-1.) This Court agrees.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when disputed facts could show that they violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Woods v. Rose · filed 2020-11-25

At the risk of being redundant, this Court disagrees, and the constitutional violations turn on the same genuine issues of material fact that the Court has already discussed. ... Accordingly, Dulle, Rose, and Shaw are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued for damages under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution is entitled to qualified immunity if she had arguable probable cause to initiate the prosecution.

Cornelio v. Connecticut · filed 2020-11-30

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if she had at least arguable probable cause to have initiated a prosecution. See Stansbury v. Wertman, 721 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2013). ... In light of this legal framework, I conclude that there was arguable probable cause to support the arrest of Cornelio for failure to notify DESPP of his email address.

A public official has qualified immunity from a § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim when the asserted right was not clearly established in the public employment context.

Copeland v. Johnson · filed 2020-11-30

As a result, the Court grants in part Lt. Johnson’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, but only as to a claim based on the Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.

State actors sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity from damages when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Drakes Collision, Inc. v. Auto Club Group Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-30

Even if the reasonableness of the defendant officers’ actions is questionable, well established case law would not have informed them that their conduct was unlawful. As such, they are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Qualified immunity protects state actors sued under § 1983 from damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

A § 1983 retaliation claim can survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the defense depends on disputed facts.

Schultz v. County of Suffolk · filed 2020-11-30

Additionally, I adopt Judge Lindsay’s recommendation that dismissal of the Retaliation Claim be denied on the grounds of qualified immunity because the Individual Defendants’ arguments rely on disputed factual determinations.

Section 1983 provides qualified immunity to officers when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Taylor v. Warden of the Manhattan Detention Center · filed 2020-11-30

“[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.’” ... The Court concludes that the correctional officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to identify clearly established law showing that their conduct was unlawful.

Betchan v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · filed 2020-11-30

As to Betchan’s claim, the Court need not determine whether the first prong of the analysis is satisfied, as Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of identifying clearly established law that would have put Defendants on notice that their conduct was unlawful. ... For these reasons, the Court determines that Defendants McEntire and Halley are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the officer had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Wierzbic v. Howard · filed 2020-12-01

"In the context of § 1983 actions predicated on allegations of false arrest, we have held that an arresting officer is entitled to qualified immunity so long as 'arguable probable cause' was present when the arrest was made." ... On the undisputed facts here, Hoock had at least arguable probable cause to believe Raymond was intentionally attempting to place Hoock in fear of physical injury.

A defendant who asserts qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim is presumed immune; the plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established right to overcome that presumption.

Bond v. City of Tahlequah · filed 2020-12-01

A defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 results in a presumption of immunity.

Qualified immunity is unavailable to officials sued only in their official capacities under § 1983.

Wright v. Beck · filed 2020-12-01

Wright sued those officials only in their official capacities. Qualified immunity is, however, “available only to government officials sued in their individual capacities” and is “not available to those sued only in their official capacities.” Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise, Idaho, 623 F.3d 945, 965 (9th Cir. 2010). We thus reverse the grant of qualified immunity for these defendants.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when established law gave fair warning that the alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Palmont v. Wright · filed 2020-12-01

Therefore, the relevant precedent put Cpl. Wright on notice that the alleged conduct would violate Mr. Palmont’s right to be free from excessive use of force. Cpl. Wright thus is not entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 excessive force suit, a plaintiff must rebut an officer’s qualified immunity defense by showing that the officer used excessive force or failed to intervene in its use.

Stokes v. Hocker · filed 2020-12-01

Most notably, Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Hocker used excessive force or failed to intervene in other officers’ uses of excessive force to rebut Defendant Hocker’s assertion that he is entitled to qualified immunity for this incident, even though it is his burden to do so in the face of Defendant Hocker pleading this defense, as set forth above.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim when the duty to intervene in an unlawful search was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Harris v. Mahr · filed 2020-12-04

We conclude that the law was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim if the plaintiff fails to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established.

Valencia v. Davis · filed 2020-12-04

Assuming arguendo that Davis’s actions amounted to a constitutional violation, we find that Valencia failed to meet his burden of showing that such a violation was clearly established. Davis is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 allows damages for a Free Exercise claim, but qualified immunity bars damages when the right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Devion Gentry v. Robinson · filed 2020-12-07

While RLUIPA provides only for equitable relief in this context, a successful § 1983 claim based on the Free Exercise Clause brings with it the prospect of damages. ... Because no law or precedent at the time of the challenged conduct “clearly established” that VDOC’s grooming policy violated the constitutional rights of religious objectors like Gentry, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

An officer accused under Section 1983 of failing to intervene in another officer’s use of force is entitled to qualified immunity when the duty to intervene was not clearly established.

Penaloza v. City of Rialto · filed 2020-12-07

Because the law does not clearly establish when an officer must intervene, Lopez is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for his failure to intervene when Boda was biting Goode.

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

Ashley G. v. Copperas Cove Independent School District · filed 2020-12-09

The Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from the excessive force and unreasonable seizure claims brought against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Officials acting within their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a constitutional right.

Johnson v. Fee · filed 2020-12-09

Fee and Hughes are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse the denial of their motion for summary judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Fee and Hughes.

Qualified immunity in Section 1983 suits applies to individual-capacity claims for monetary damages, but not to official-capacity claims or claims for nonmonetary relief.

Halik v. Darbyshire · filed 2020-12-12

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

Section 1983 allows an excessive-force claim to proceed when disputed facts prevent an officer from establishing qualified immunity.

Redrick v. City of Akron, Ohio · filed 2020-12-13

Until the details surrounding Redrick’s alleged movements at the time of the shooting are resolved by a jury, Turnure cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Tate v. Tre Smith · filed 2020-12-15

We also agree with the district court that even assuming such a violation, Officers Hilton and Smith are entitled to qualified immunity because Tate has not identified case law or otherwise shown that there was a “clearly established” right of which a reasonable person would have known.

An officer sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s account describes conduct no reasonable officer could believe lawful.

Horton v. Molina · filed 2020-12-15

When considering this argument for purposes of summary judgment, plaintiff’s version of events must be assumed to be true. No reasonable official could believe that he or she could lawfully hit a compliant inmate, slam his head into the ground, kneel on his neck, break his elbow, and later slam his head into a window while he was handcuffed. Consequently, summary judgment is not appropriate on qualified immunity grounds.

A § 1983 plaintiff opposing qualified immunity at summary judgment must show that the official violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established.

Heykoop v. Mich. State Police · filed 2020-12-16

The plaintiff in a § 1983 action bears the burden of overcoming the qualified-immunity defense. Bunkley, 902 F.3d at 559. At the summary-judgment stage, the plaintiff must show both that the defendant official violated a constitutional right and that right was clearly established.

A government official sued personally under § 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage and may raise the defense again at summary judgment.

Klein v. Arizona State University Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication · filed 2020-12-17

Therefore, at this ... stage, Gilger is not entitled to qualified immunity, though she may raise it again at summary ... judgment if the evidentiary record becomes more developed or if she cites appropriate case ... law providing grounds for qualified immunity.