42 U.S.C. § 1983

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity on a handcuffing claim when the officer had no notice that the handcuffs were causing pain or injury.

BROWN v. PERKINS · filed 2020-12-17

Thus, Officer Perkins is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim insofar as that claim rests on the way Perkins handcuffed the Browns.

Defendants in a § 1983 action cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when they have not shown they are entitled to it.

Rhymes v. Keast · filed 2020-12-17

Here, Judge Baldwin recommends Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied as Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and have not shown they are entitled to qualified immunity at this time. (ECF No. 48 at 6-11.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt ... the R&R in full.

Government officials have qualified immunity from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Cronin v. Peterson · filed 2020-12-18

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability in a § 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity shields an official from a § 1983 claim when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established in the specific circumstances.

Cunningham v. Wood County · filed 2020-12-18

The law was not clearly established that Sheriff Castloo’s particular conduct violated Cunningham’s procedural-due-process right to a name-clearing hearing.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against individual officials when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Mitchell v. Town of Hayneville, Alabama · filed 2020-12-18

Qualified immunity bars his § 1983 suits for damages against the four individual councilmembers for violating his procedural-due-process rights.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when they reasonably mistake the plaintiff for the person named in a valid arrest warrant.

Williams v. The City of Montgomery · filed 2020-12-21

Because the officers reasonably mistook Williams for his brother, they were immune from Williams’s complaint of a false arrest.

Qualified immunity bars damages under Section 1983 when the plaintiff cannot show that the official violated a clearly established federal right.

Luong v. Napa State Hospital · filed 2020-12-22

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for damages unless plaintiffs can show that the officials violated a right that was “clearly established” under federal law. ... There is no precedent requiring hospital employees, as a matter of federal law, to inform jail officials, defense counsel, or others of special procedures available to inmates awaiting hospital admission. ... At the very least, the hospital employees are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the facts supporting the defense do not appear on the face of the complaint.

Daugevelo v. County Of Sullivan · filed 2020-12-22

Without the benefit of discovery, the Court is not able to determine, based upon a reading of the AC, whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as the facts supporting Defendants’ qualified immunity defense do not appear on the face of Plaintiffs’ AC. Simply stated, the Court cannot determine with any certainty whether Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity as there are insufficient allegations in the AC to support such a finding. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds at this juncture.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim for injunctive or declaratory relief.

Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Nabors · filed 2020-12-22

Hamilton County Clerk Knowles’ assertion of qualified immunity is equally misplaced. “An official’s qualified immunity does not preclude injunctive or declaratory relief.”

Section 1983 allows an excessive force claim to proceed against an officer when clearly established law would have made the alleged force unlawful to a reasonable officer.

McFerson v. Gilden · filed 2020-12-23

Defendants argue that even if the force used was unreasonable, Gildon is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Given this clearly established law, no reasonable officer could consider the events alleged by McFerson to constitute a lawful exercise of force.

A § 1983 damages claim against an official fails on qualified immunity when the plaintiff does not show that the asserted right was clearly established under the specific circumstances.

Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska · filed 2020-12-23

She must show she had a clearly established equal-protection right that was beyond debate under the specific facts and circumstances of this case. ... Because Doe has not met that burden, her § 1983 claims are dismissed.

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

Gomez v. Peters · filed 2020-12-23

Here, too, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by qualified immunity. ... And at the time of this incident it was not clearly established that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights would be violated by exposure to a hot or warm decontamination shower.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was clearly established and material factual disputes remain about the officer’s conduct.

NEWMAN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-12-23

Because this precedent indicates that the right at issue here was, indeed, clearly established at the time of the underlying incident, and in light of the existence of the genuine issues of material fact discussed above, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on the existing record.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 damages claim when a correctional officer violates clearly established law by failing to take reasonable steps against a known, imminent risk of serious self-harm.

Flemming, Jayvon v. Bohnsack · filed 2020-12-23

I also conclude that Bohnsack is not entitled to qualified immunity. See Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”). It was clearly established long before August 2018 that a correctional officer who knew that an inmate may imminently seek to take his own life or engage in serious self-harm must take reasonable steps to prevent the inmate from performing the act. See Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 553 (7th Cir. 2017); Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Cty. of Madison, Ill., 746 F.3d 766, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 737 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Flemming has submitted evidence from which a jury could conclude that Bohnsack failed to take reasonable measures to help Flemming despite knowing that Flemming had a plan to harm himself in the near future, Bohnsack is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An official sued for damages in an individual capacity under Section 1983 has qualified immunity unless the official violated a clearly established right.

Cullom v. Dart · filed 2020-12-27

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for damages in the performance of his duties unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. ... In particular, he identifies no analogous and authoritative cases regarding a jailer's response to a pandemic involving a highly infectious and previously unknown virus. Dart is entitled to dismissal of Cullom's individual-capacity claim.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes a violation of a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Saffell v. Wilson · filed 2020-12-28

An official sued under section 1983 is entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 false-arrest claim when alleged misstatements and omissions in a warrant affidavit prevent the court from finding that the officer reasonably believed probable cause existed.

PINKNEY v. MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2020-12-28

Given his inaccurate statements and omissions in that affidavit, the Coutt cannot hold as a matter of law that he had a reasonable belief that probable cause existed for Pinkney’s arrest. Accordingly, his request for dismissal of this action based upon qualified immunity must be denied.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 liability when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Nunes v. Stephens · filed 2020-12-29

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields public officials facing liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” of the violation. ... Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clear to every reasonable official under the circumstances.

Bates v. Schwarzenegger · filed 2020-12-29

Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against the state official defendants was proper because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that ... Plaintiffs’ heightened exposure to Valley Fever was unlawful under the circumstances.

A school official sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity when the complaint sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference to known student sexual harassment and the right was clearly established.

Doe v. Roaring Fork School District · filed 2020-12-29

Plaintiff Ms. Doe has met both prongs of the qualified immunity test. She has alleged a colorable violation of her equal protection rights under § 1983, and the law on this constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of these allegations. Defendant Engle is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings.

An official claiming qualified immunity from a Section 1983 suit must first show that the conduct was within the official’s discretionary authority.

Haegele v. Judd · filed 2020-12-29

In order to establish a defense of qualified immunity, a government official must first demonstrate that he or she was acting within his or her discretionary authority.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could show that a prison official consciously disregarded a known risk of imminent self-harm.

Sheppard, Charles v. Kussmaul, John · filed 2020-12-30

Given that the parties dispute whether Sheppard told Kussmaul he was considering self-harm and whether Kussmaul then lied to Sheppard about telling Dr. Hoem about his thoughts of self-harm, qualified immunity is also unavailable to Kussmaul here, even taking Johnson into account.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer whose investigative search violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Watley v. Felsman · filed 2020-12-30

With respect to the inventory search of Watley’s vehicle, Corporal Nilon was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officers from a Section 1983 seizure claim when their seizure of a vehicle used in a crime as evidence was objectively reasonable.

Watson v. Brennan · filed 2020-12-30

The seizure of the vehicle was reasonable, because the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime and therefore evidence, which would afford Defendants protection by qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit with multiple defendants, each defendant is entitled to an individual qualified immunity analysis.

Matthews v. Officer J. Wetherbee · filed 2020-12-31

Because the officers are entitled to an individualized qualified immunity analysis, this constituted error.

Once an official raises qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the immunity does not apply.

B.T. v. Battle · filed 2020-12-31

The burden is on the defendant to raise the defense, and once the defendant meets his burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity should not apply.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Ray Westall Operating, Inc. v. Richard · filed 2021-01-04

Therefore, the Commissioners are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage, and Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim shall remain pending against the Commissioners in their individual capacities.

Government officials sued individually under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence cannot support a constitutional violation.

Laws v. Brooks · filed 2021-01-04

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim.

Qualified immunity protects officers from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the evidence does not show that they violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Holm v. Sausenhagen · filed 2021-01-05

Defendants Martinez, Sassenhagen, and Ruiz are entitled to qualified immunity.

Defendants sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the law governing the asserted right was not clearly established.

White v. Stephenson · filed 2021-01-07

As for the remaining claims, the district court granted the named defendants qualified immunity on the grounds that the law was not clearly established. ... We have reviewed these issues raised and affirm the district court for substantially the same reasons it relied upon.

A plaintiff must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right to overcome qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim at summary judgment.

Henderson v. Glanz · filed 2015-12-28

Thus, at summary judgment, we must grant qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show (1) a reasonable jury could find facts supporting a violation of a constitutional right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

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

Parsons v. Beaver · filed 2021-01-08

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

A Section 1983 plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity defense.

Dent v. Methodist Health Systems · filed 2021-01-08

And because the Complaint does not allege any facts that would allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Mathews somehow tainted those deliberations, Dent has not alleged sufficient facts to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Irwin v. Santiago · filed 2021-01-08

Accordingly, the Defendant–Officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and the ... Court GRANTS their summary-judgment motion (Doc. 26).

Qualified immunity did not warrant dismissal of the § 1983 medical-care claim against the jail officers.

Gartman v. Cheatham · filed 2021-01-11

Agee and Cheatham have moved to dismiss the federal claim against them on the basis of failure to state a claim and qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

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

Hurd v. Fredenburgh · filed 2021-01-12

Fredenburgh is entitled to qualified immunity under this standard. It was not clearly established during the period of Hurd’s prolonged detention that an inmate suffers harm of a constitutional magnitude under the Eighth Amendment when they are imprisoned past their mandatory conditional release date, nor was it clearly established that an inmate has a liberty interest in mandatory conditional release protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause.

A supervisor sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show a known practice that exposed prisoners to assault.

Perez v. Ryan · filed 2021-01-12

... Defendant Ryan has not shown that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Washington v. O'Neal · filed 2021-01-12

Consequently, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and Defendant’s Motion must be granted.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of an individual-capacity § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint adequately alleges deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs.

Gomez v. Lister · filed 2021-01-12

As previously found, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant Stormant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical treatment following the uses of force. ... Accordingly, Defendant Stormant is not entitled to qualified immunity for that claim at the pleading stage.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts prevent the court from resolving the defense.

Sanders v. Rose · filed 2021-01-12

At this time, therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claim against the trooper.

Fagre v. Parks · filed 2021-01-13

Trooper Parks was also entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity barred the individual-capacity § 1983 claims against the state officials in this case.

Emery v. Wilson · filed 2021-01-13

Even accepting Plaintiff’s version of the facts as true and construing them in his favor, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Goulette v. Kalinski · filed 2021-01-13

Because Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient evidence that Dr. Kalinski’s conduct violated any constitutional right, Dr. Kalinski is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against an officer fail under qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show both a constitutional violation and a clearly established right.

Craft v. White · filed 2021-01-14

For these reasons, we conclude that Officer White enjoys qualified immunity on the claims of malicious prosecution and retaliatory prosecution. We thus reverse and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to Officer White.

Section 1983 damages claims against officials in their individual capacities are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Burke v. Clarke · filed 2021-01-14

Thus, we affirm the district court’s ruling that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the First Amendment damages claim.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from § 1983 liability when a reasonable officer could believe the conduct was lawful under clearly established law.

Simmons v. Legner · filed 2021-01-14

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from § 1983 liability if a “reasonable officer could have believed that their actions were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the arresting officer possessed.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987). ... There was nothing egregious about the officers’ conduct, and Plaintiff has not provided any case law to suggest the officers violated any clearly established rights. Thus, Defendants are otherwise entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from § 1983 retaliation and excessive force claims involving clearly established constitutional rights.

Knight II v. Djukic · filed 2021-01-14

Because Plaintiff's retaliation and excessive force claims both alleged violation of a clearly established right, Judge Cobb found that Defendants would not be immune from suit. (/d.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning.

School employees are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the challenged restraint of a student does not violate a constitutional right.

Abron v. Barrilleaux · filed 2021-01-15

Here, Plaintiff does not state a constitutional claim, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Deputies may be entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.

Garcia v. Brown · filed 2021-01-15

Next, the Magistrate Judge suggested dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim and finding the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. ... The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63) and incorporates it herein by reference.

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

Calvey v. Village of Walton Hills, Ohio · filed 2021-01-19

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... As such, the individual defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims stemming from his July 29, 2018 removal from the residence.

A section 1983 claim may survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the alleged acts require further factual development to determine whether immunity applies.

Strickland v. Ujiri · filed 2021-01-19

Therefore, the motion to dismiss Ujiri’s section 1983 claim is DENIED without prejudice to Strickland raising the qualified immunity issue on a more fulsome factual record at summary judgment or trial.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Estate of Susanne Burgaz, The v. Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County Colorado · filed 2021-01-19

For the reasons stated, the FAC fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation thus entitling them to qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 claim can survive a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the pleaded facts plausibly show a violation of a clearly established right.

Mayer v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2021-01-19

On the other hand, construing the complaint in favor of Plaintiff, as the Court must, two allegations do not allow disposition of the question of qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Qualified immunity can bar an Eighth Amendment claim brought under § 1983.

Hollinquest v. Payne · filed 2021-01-19

Plaintiff also argues Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. The Court disagrees, and adopts this portion of the F&R, ECF 60 at 15–24, in full.

Section 1983 grants qualified immunity to defendants who reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause exists.

Lester v. Roberts · filed 2021-01-20

As a matter of substance, the Fourth Amendment prohibits only those pretrial seizures (or prosecutions) that lack probable cause, and § 1983 grants qualified immunity to defendants who mistakenly but reasonably conclude that probable cause exists.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law would have put them on notice that their conduct violated constitutional rights.

Daisy Reyna v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2021-01-20

As the district court correctly held, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that “clearly established” law demonstrated that the conduct of Loya-Chhabra and Vance was unconstitutional.

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

Roberts v. Lessard · filed 2021-01-20

Without deliberate indifference, Roberts has failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Thus, Defendants are protected by qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Estrada v. Smart · filed 2021-01-20

Accordingly, Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to overcome Defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, and as a consequence Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 supervisory claim at summary judgment when the supervisor’s role in policies causing overdetention presents a triable question of objective reasonableness.

Traweek v. Gusman · filed 2021-01-20

As with DiBenedetto and Jones, Traweek’s constitutional claims against LeBlanc raise issues that are primarily legal in nature – indeed, the question is less what happened to Traweek and similarly situated inmates as whether LeBlanc’s complicity in establishing (and/or failing to correct) policies leading to such extensive violations of inmates’ clearly established rights to timely release was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. That question is best left for trial. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing – and particularly in light of the Fifth Circuit’s signal in Hicks – the Court cannot grant qualified immunity to LeBlanc on the record before the Court.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the officer could reasonably believe deadly force was required.

Stanton v. Elliott · filed 2021-01-21

As such, this Court finds that defendant Elliott could have reasonably believed deadly force was required and is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Moses v. Lamb · filed 2021-01-22

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

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when a genuine factual dispute remains over whether they used excessive force.

Brown v. Detroit, City of · filed 2021-01-22

The Court finds that, based on Brown’s Affidavit and the video footage, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Shaw and Stallard used excessive force in their encounter with Brown. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES qualified immunity to Shaw and Stallard on Brown’s §1983 excessive force claim.

An officer defending a § 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when the conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Scoma v. City of New York · filed 2021-01-22

Because Officer Allende did not violate a clearly established right, he is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim with respect to the taser.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when his conduct violated no clearly established law.

Palmer v. Santa Maria Police Dept. · filed 2021-01-25

We conclude that Officer Green did not violate clearly established law when he allowed his police dog to remain on bite until Palmer had been handcuffed.

Section 1983 individual-capacity claims against officials are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Jasmaine a/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Gazoo · filed 2021-01-25

Here, because Plaintiff has not forecasted evidence that Defendants violated a constitutional right, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Proctor v. Krzanowski · filed 2020-08-13

Because Proctor can point to no clearly established liberty or property interest violated by Krzanowski and Mitchell, Krzanowski and Mitchell are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity may bar a § 1983 claim against prison officials even if a constitutional violation is assumed.

Inman v. Dewitt · filed 2020-08-24

He asserts constitutional claims against Defendants Aaron Dewitt and Raymond Gathers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with a March 18, 2019 incident in Plaintiff’s cell at the Kirkland Correctional Institution. ... In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, because (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit; (2) Plaintiff’s claims fail on the merits at the summary judgment stage; and (3) even if a constitutional violation occurred, the Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity bar Plaintiff’s suit. ... Reviewing the Report for clear error, it is adopted in its entirety.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity on a § 1983 medical-care claim when a jury could find that she disregarded a pretrial detainee’s obvious need for care and the right to that care was clearly established.

Colson v. City of Alcoa, Tennessee · filed 2020-09-14

As noted above, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that Officer England is not entitled to qualified immunity and must show that the constitutional right that she alleges was violated was “clearly established.” ... In light of the case law presented by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that the right that was violated was “clearly established.” ... Therefore, the Court will DENY summary judgment on Count 9 as to Officer England.

Qualified immunity does not protect a prison official from a Section 1983 claim when sufficient evidence shows he knowingly violated a clearly established right without sufficient justification.

Edwards v. Quiros · filed 2021-01-27

The jury reasonably determined, upon sufficient evidence, that Quiros knowingly violated Edwards’s clearly established right to meaningful exercise under the circumstances and lacked a sufficient justification for doing so. We will not disturb the jury’s finding that Quiros was not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim for a use of force that a reasonable officer would have believed lawful in the circumstances.

McKoy v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-01-27

Accordingly, the Court must grant in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim as to the shots fired by Officer Brathwaite because Officer Brathwaite is entitled to qualified immunity for firing those shots.

An officer facing a Section 1983 damages claim receives qualified immunity when existing law gave no fair warning that the conduct was unconstitutional.

Kuessner v. Wooten · filed 2021-01-28

But an officer only has to have arguable probable cause to receive qualified immunity. ... These cases provided no fair warning to Wooten that his conduct was unconstitutional. They did not clearly establish that he lacked arguable probable cause to believe Kuessner had been driving based on the available facts—arriving alone, at the remote station, early in the morning, keys in hand, to pick up Wood. The district court properly granted summary judgment to Wooten.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their use of force violates clearly established constitutional law.

Villanueva v. State of California · filed 2021-01-28

Two police officers appeal the denial of qualified immunity in this § 1983 action alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ... Because we agree with the district court that the law precluding deadly force under the circumstances the officers confronted was clearly established, we affirm.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity when a reasonable official would have known the conduct violated a clearly established right.

Jackson v. Zadeh · filed 2021-01-28

The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and drawing all reasonable inferences in Jackson’s favor, Dr. Soltanian-Zadeh is not entitled to qualified immunity because Jackson’s right to be free from deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to his health was clearly established, and a reasonable official would have known that failing to provide for a lower bunk assignment was unlawful under the circumstances.

Officers who had no role in a fellow officer’s alleged excessive force and no opportunity to intervene are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Sweiha v. County of Alameda · filed 2021-01-28

The other deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. After Deputy Edwards deployed his dog, the entire encounter took seconds. No facts suggest that the deputies had any role — let alone an integral-participant role — in Deputy Edwards’ alleged conduct in positioning the dog so that he would bite Mr. Sweiha. ... Moreover, they had no opportunity to intercede.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Casiano v. Ashley · filed 2021-01-28

My finding that the Deputies did not use excessive force renders it unnecessary for the Court to address defendants’ qualified immunity defense, but I do find as a matter of law that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 police pursuit claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts plausibly show intent to harm and the officer had fair warning that such conduct could create constitutional liability.

CLARK v. MERRELL · filed 2021-01-28

Plaintiffs bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Merrell, alleging that the high-speed pursuit created a state-created danger and violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Officer Merrell now seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The narrow issue before us is whether, at this early stage of the litigation, qualified immunity shields Officer Merrell from liability. We conclude that it does not.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when the alleged conduct would obviously violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Prescott v. Herrera · filed 2021-01-29

Accepting Plaintiffs’ account, the violation of Kameron’s constitutional rights would have been “obvious . . . even without a body of relevant case law.” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (per curiam).

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

Juricich v. County of San Mateo · filed 2021-01-29

The distinctions from Thomas mean that Juricich has failed to meet his burden of showing that the clearly established law prior to December 2018 “placed beyond debate the unconstitutionality of the officials’ actions, as those actions unfolded in the specific context of the case at hand.” Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1091. Accordingly, I find that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim when the plaintiff cannot show they knew of a substantial risk to his safety.

Poree v. Akwitti · filed 2021-01-29

As to whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to Poree’s safety, we find no error with the district court’s determination that summary judgment was proper.

Officers are protected from § 1983 liability by qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Gonzalez v. City of Huntington Beach · filed 2021-02-01

Despite the Officers’ constitutional violation, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from liability.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the evidence shows no constitutional violation.

Chapman v. Starnes · filed 2021-02-01

Although not argued by Defendants, the Court also notes that since there is no evidence of a constitutional violation, qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against Defendants.

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

Murdock v. Ingram · filed 2021-02-01

Here, because the Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights with respect to his safety or medical care, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

Qualified immunity shields an official from a Section 1983 claim for affirming an allegedly defective prison disciplinary hearing when it was not clearly established that doing so violated due process.

Brown v. Venettozi · filed 2021-02-01

Apart from improperly handling his appeal—conduct for which Venettozi is entitled to qualified immunity—Plaintiff makes no allegations about Venettozi’s role in Green Haven’s disciplinary process.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity from monetary damages to prison officials who confiscate photographs that plainly fall outside a prison regulation’s restrictions.

Griffin Jr. v. Gorman · filed 2021-02-02

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that Mr. Griffin would be entitled to monetary damages relating to the confiscation of Images 3, 5, 6, and 7.

Qualified immunity defeats an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the official did not violate a constitutional right.

Heavin v. Kentucky State University · filed 2021-02-02

The Court therefore finds that Dr. Yates is entitled to qualified immunity as to Dr. Heavin’s § 1983 claim against him in his individual capacity.

Section 1983 damages claims against government officers are subject to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Davis v. Lewis · filed 2021-02-02

For the same reason, Plaintiff has not established a clear violation of his constitutional rights so as to overcome qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when their use of deadly force is objectively reasonable against a serious threat.

Jordan v. Howard · filed 2021-02-03

Given these unrebutted facts, we conclude that both Officers Howard and Knight acted reasonably to stop a serious threat of deadly force, and the district court correctly granted them qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation.

Thweatt v. Rhodes · filed 2021-02-04

Thweatt has failed to state a plausible claim for malicious prosecution, and thus, fails to allege a constitutional violation to support a § 1983 claim. ... Because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court will grant the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the Motion to Dismiss.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the officer violated a clearly established right; a material factual dispute about that defense can preclude summary judgment.

Joseph v. City of Kent · filed 2021-02-04

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the officer violated a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. ... “But this question—whether it was reasonable for [Officer Davis] to believe that his life or person was in danger—is the very question upon which [this Court has] found that there are genuine issues of material fact”; therefore, summary judgment on this issue is inappropriate.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 arrest claim when officers had arguable probable cause based on the facts and circumstances before them at the time of arrest.

TURNER v. MILLER · filed 2021-02-04

Even if there were no actual probable cause to arrest Turner, qualified immunity shields the County Defendants from suit because arguable probable cause existed to arrest him based on the facts and circumstances before them at the time of the arrest. For this reason, the Court alternatively grants the Motion to Dismiss on Turner's § 1983 claim against these County Defendants on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an officer when clearly established law put the officer on notice that body slamming a passive, nonthreatening misdemeanant was excessive force.

MacKintrush v. Hodge · filed 2021-02-05

The right of a passive arrestee to be free from excessive use of body slams (or similar techniques) was clearly established when Hodge took MacKintrush to the floor.

A plaintiff opposing summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a § 1983 action must show that the defendant violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Advantageous Community v. King · filed 2021-02-05

When a defendant in a § 1983 action moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, which (2) was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s conduct.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages claims when their conduct violates no clearly established right.

Dyal v. Pinkston · filed 2021-02-05

Given our conclusion that the facts show no Eighth Amendment violation, we also conclude that Defendants -- under the circumstances -- violated no already clearly established right. So even if we are mistaken about whether the facts might show an Eighth Amendment violation, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s damage claims.

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

Bowling v. Bray · filed 2021-02-08

Therefore, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity with respect to Bowling’s claim for monetary damages for alleged due process violations during the disciplinary proceedings.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their use of force does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Ramirez v. Guadarrama · filed 2021-02-08

This point is, however, inconsequential, as we find that both officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials may proceed when the pleaded facts show a violation of a clearly established right, defeating qualified immunity at the dismissal stage.

Janus v. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation · filed 2021-02-08

Thus, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims is DENIED.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for an unprovoked and unjustified attack on an inmate when the unlawfulness of that conduct was clearly established, even if the injuries were minor.

Johnson v. Heins · filed 2021-02-09

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, as it was clearly established at the time of their alleged conduct that “an unprovoked and unjustified attack by a prison guard” violates the Eighth Amendment, even if the guard inflicted only “minor injuries.” Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699, 702 (9th Cir. 1991).

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Gerard v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-10

Drawing all inferences in favor of Gerard and assuming, for purposes of this appeal only, that Detective Bia brandished his gun and threatened to shoot Gerard when he volubly refused to comply with the court order, Detective Bia was entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officers from liability under Section 1983 when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

DeSabetino v. Biagini · filed 2021-02-10

Thus, the use of force by Officers Snider, Symsek, and Kelly did not violate any of Desabetino’s clearly established constitutional rights, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can bar a Section 1983 claim against an officer when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Hamen v. Hamlin Cnty. · filed 2021-02-10

On the Hamens’ § 1983 claims, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment on the Sheriff’s qualified immunity for the unlawful entry claim, but we reverse the circuit court’s denial of summary judgment on the Sheriff’s qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

A defendant in a Section 1983 excessive force action is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when the right was clearly established and a genuine dispute remains over whether the force was excessive.

Mobley v. Henderson County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-02-10

Here, because the right at issue was clearly established and because there is a genuine dispute regarding whether Defendant’s use of force was excessive, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the officer reasonably, even if mistakenly, believes probable cause exists.

Smith v. Clark · filed 2021-02-11

Because an officer who reasonably but mistakenly believes probable cause exists is entitled to immunity, Officer Lopez is entitled to qualified immunity as to Mrs. Taylor-Smith.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when an officer acts objectively reasonably in seeking arrest warrants.

Shrewsbury v. Williams · filed 2021-02-11

Therefore, we conclude that Williams was objectively reasonable in seeking the arrest warrants against McKinney and Shrewsbury, and that the district court did not err in finding that Williams was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 malicious prosecution claims.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action is evaluated separately for each defendant.

Shefeik v. Busby · filed 2021-02-12

We consider qualified immunity as to each defendant individually.

Section 1983 claims against an officer are subject to qualified immunity when the law was not clearly established.

Laizure v. Washington County · filed 2021-02-12

Alternatively, qualified immunity shields Tran because Laizure has not shown that the law was clearly established. ... Tran is entitled to qualified immunity on Laizure’s § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material facts underlying the defense remain disputed.

OUELLETTE v. GAUDETTE · filed 2021-02-12

Given these considerations, genuine issues of material fact underlie the qualified immunity defense and, consequently, summary judgment is not warranted.

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

Johnson v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor · filed 2021-02-16

However, we are also bound by our holding in Porter that the Eighth Amendment right in this context was not clearly established at the time of Porter’s (and Johnson’s) solitary confinement, so the Defendants can assert a qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity does not shield a supervisor from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law gave notice that failing to protect inmates from officers’ abuse could create supervisory liability.

Younger v. Green · filed 2021-02-17

Fourth Circuit precedent sufficiently notified Crowder that failing to take action to protect inmates from abuses at the hands of correctional officers could lead to supervisory liability under § 1983. ... For these same reasons, this Court reiterates its finding that Defendant Crowder is not entitled to qualified immunity in this case.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer whose conduct did not clearly violate the Constitution.

Vaseleros-Stevenson v. Calvert County, Maryland · filed 2021-02-17

Whether or not Plaintiff had a Fourth Amendment interest in Storm, federal law extends qualified immunity to Officer Lewis because his conduct did not clearly violate the Constitution.

Officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when no constitutional violation is shown, but a factual dispute over excessive force can preclude it.

Mauney v. Burke County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-02-17

Here, because Plaintiff has not forecasted evidence that Defendant Marshall violated a constitutional right, Defendant Marshall is entitled to qualified immunity on all Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims. Defendant Bollinger, however, is entitled to such immunity only on Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because an issue of fact remains as to whether he used excessive force on Plaintiff under the Eighth Amendment.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims when probable cause supported the arrest.

Shopbell v. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife · filed 2021-02-18

Because the existence of probable cause entitles Defendants to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ §1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims, the Court hereby dismisses these claims.

An officer asserting qualified immunity against a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim needs only arguable probable cause.

Rivera v. Granillo · filed 2021-02-18

And Granillo needed only “arguable probable cause,” given his assertion of qualified immunity. Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134, 1141 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). He had at least that much, even if Miller never told her story of the assault until after he told her he could not remove Rivera for trespassing.

Qualified immunity protects officers sued under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Cabrera v. City of Hobbs · filed 2021-02-19

In sum, the Court holds that no clearly established constitutional right was violated by Defendants Gordon, Seay, or Hoff.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted federal right was not clearly established.

Fladger v. State of Maryland · filed 2021-02-19

The individual defendants named in Fladger’s complaint are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right for Fladger to have any and all complaints processed under the administrative remedy procedure.

An officer alleged to have fabricated a confession used to make an arrest is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at the pleading stage.

Wright v. Gualandri · filed 2021-02-21

No reasonable officer could believe an arrest based on a fabricated confession to be lawful.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Bushrod v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-02-22

In sum, Bushrod has at the very least failed to meet his burden to show that Blier’s shot violated a clearly established right. He did not define the alleged right with enough specificity, see Emmons, 139 S. Ct. at 503, because he did not define it at all. Qualified immunity applies.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Brandt v. Crone · filed 2021-02-22

Absent this clearly established law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against a public employee when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Davis v. Thomas · filed 2021-02-22

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that Counts IV, V and VII of the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity and are DISMISSED as a result.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a plausible § 1983 claim when resolving the defense requires facts beyond the complaint.

Beamon v. Hamed · filed 2021-02-22

All that has been filed in this case is the complaint and this motion to dismiss. Therefore, closely analyzing the two-step process for resolving the defendant’s qualified immunity defense is premature. The court is left with determining whether the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are plausible on their face.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the official violated a clearly established right.

Burnett v. Griffith · filed 2021-02-22

Cordell is too dissimilar and therefore cannot be used to show that Griffith violated a clearly established right. Burnett has not met his burden of showing that Griffith violated a clearly established right. Griffith is entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that officials disregarded a substantial risk to a foster child whose right to safe placement was clearly established.

Ansara v. Maldonado · filed 2021-02-22

Accordingly, the Court finds that Clark County Defendants have not demonstrated their entitlement to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when they did not violate a clearly established right and their conduct was objectively reasonable.

Wiggins v. Griffin · filed 2021-02-22

Plaintiff has pointed to no case law, and the Court is aware of none, establishing that Defendants violated a clearly established right. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate because Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the facts show no constitutional violation.

Basham v. Conkleton · filed 2021-02-23

Thus, Defendant Conkleton is entitled to qualified immunity in regard to Plaintiff’s individual capacity claim.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts determine whether an officer knowingly made a false accusation.

Appling v. City of New York · filed 2021-02-23

In light of the Court’s above findings, the availability of qualified immunity will depend on the jury’s findings of fact with respect to what Plaintiff was wearing on the night in question and whether Detective Verdesoto believed the person he observed throw the gun was Plaintiff or knew him to be someone else. Therefore, the Court cannot grant qualified immunity on this record.

A defendant sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a statutory or constitutional right.

Reedy v. West · filed 2021-02-24

Viewing the record facts in the light most favorable to Reedy, he has not created a triable issue of fact to support an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. West is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

For a Section 1983 claim brought by relatives after a police killing, the qualified-immunity inquiry asks whether the officers violated the decedent’s clearly established rights.

Mann v. City of Sacramento · filed 2021-02-24

The relevant question for the court under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis here is therefore whether a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated Joseph’s clearly established rights, not those of the plaintiffs.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an officer who uses force sufficient to cause an arm laceration requiring stitches while uncuffing a compliant inmate.

Young v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2021-02-24

The Court also rejects Defendant Williams’ qualified immunity argument. At the time of the events in question, it was clearly established that employing force sufficient to cause an arm laceration requiring stitches while uncuffing an inmate complying with orders implicates an inmate’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action does not apply to official-capacity claims or to claims against the sheriff’s office or Wellpath.

Gurrola v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-02-25

Given that the successful invocation of qualified immunity here would still not dispose of the Complaint in its entirety because qualified immunity does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims brought against the Department, Wellpath, or Defendant Shrader in his official capacity, I turn now to consider whether the String Cheese factors weigh in favor of a stay.

Government officials have qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Rindahl v. Noem · filed 2021-02-25

Because Rindahl has not made out a violation of constitutional or statutory law, the SDDOC Defendants have qualified immunity on Rindahl’s First Amendment claim.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity when the right at issue was not clearly established under the circumstances alleged.

Allen v. Cepelak · filed 2021-02-26

Because an inmate has no clearly established constitutional right to religious services under circumstances similar to those here, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Allen’s First Amendment claim relating to denial of religious services for his religion of Islamism, as alleged in the complaint.

In a § 1983 false-arrest suit, a deputy sheriff acting within his discretionary authority may assert qualified immunity, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show that immunity is inappropriate.

ROBINSON v. MCNEESE · filed 2021-02-26

Since Defendant McNeese has shown that he acted within the scope of his discretionary authority when the alleged wrongful act occurred, “the burden shifts to [Plaintiff] to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when material factual disputes prevent a finding that the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

Dartez (ID 87393) v. Peters · filed 2021-02-26

As a result, the Court denies summary judgment on Defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from individual-capacity damages when the complaint fails to state a constitutional violation.

Tedder v. Pride Enterprises Incorporated, Corporate Office · filed 2021-03-01

Thus, Defendants Green and Griffis are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages in their individual capacities as to Tedder’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against them.

Section 1983 does not allow full-time employees of private corporations providing medical care in correctional facilities under similar circumstances to assert qualified immunity.

Tanner v. McMurray · filed 2021-03-02

We therefore hold that the employees of private corporations providing medical care in correctional facilities under circumstances similar to those presented in this case are not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

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

Barcelona v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · filed 2021-03-02

Consequently, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official sued in an individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violates no constitutional right.

Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary · filed 2021-03-02

Because there was no constitutional violation in the first instance, we affirm the district court’s holding that Principal Foster was entitled to qualified immunity without needing to consider the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that an officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Perry v. Bone · filed 2021-03-03

Therefore, Trooper Nalls is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law prohibited the challenged conduct.

Koley v. Williams · filed 2021-03-03

Because there was no clearly established law in January 2018 prohibiting the deployment of a dog in the prison context under these (or analogous) circumstances, Williams is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts could show that the officer had no reason to believe a fleeing person was armed or dangerous.

Rios, Sr. v. City Of Chicago · filed 2021-03-03

A trial is necessary because the jury could reasonably find that Redelsperger did not see the revolver or have reason to know that Rios carried any kind of gun (as opposed to some sort of non-dangerous contraband) and lacked sufficient reason to fear that Rios represented a threat to his safety or the safety of the public.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when no controlling precedent or robust appellate consensus clearly establishes that their specific conduct violates a constitutional right.

PIERRE v. POLICE OFFICER MCCOLGAN · filed 2021-03-03

Because Pierre has not pointed to any Supreme Court, Third Circuit, or a “robust consensus” of out-of-circuit caselaw addressing similar circumstances – and nor has the Court found any – the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a defendant from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when a genuine factual dispute bears on whether the defendant used unconstitutional force.

McClure v. Torres · filed 2021-03-03

Defendant Torres is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Section 1983 does not afford officers qualified immunity for a detention and frisk based solely on an unconfirmed hunch that an arrest warrant exists.

Vasquez v. Maloney · filed 2021-03-04

Accordingly, at this stage and on the limited factual record before us, the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for their detention and frisk of Vasquez.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot identify a violation of a clearly established right.

Hernandez v. Town of Gilbert · filed 2021-03-04

Because Hernandez cannot identify a violation of any “clearly established” right, Officer Gilbert is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could establish a violation of clearly established rights.

Anderson v. Ivey · filed 2021-03-04

Deputy Ferreira is not entitled to summary judgment on Anderson’s § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity.

Defendants in a § 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Brown v. Santiago · filed 2021-03-05

Because there was no constitutional violation, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 action, a court may allow discovery limited to facts needed to decide a qualified immunity defense.

Hobbs v. Warren · filed 2021-03-05

At this stage, crucial facts necessary to resolve the issue of qualified immunity are unknown. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and REMAND for discovery limited to that issue. We INSTRUCT the district court to carry the issue of qualified immunity and decide it anew once that discovery is complete.

A § 1983 claim can survive a motion to dismiss when the complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation and qualified immunity depends on facts the plaintiff need not plead.

Hitzke v. Village of Mundelein · filed 2021-03-05

For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the complaint’s allegations are sufficient to state a Section 1983 claim for both deliberate indifference and excessive force and that it would be premature to decide whether the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant seeking qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim must show either that the alleged facts do not establish a constitutional violation or that the right was not clearly established.

Keenan v. Ahern · filed 2021-03-08

For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. ... Defendant timely removed the action to this Court, ECF No. 1, and now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity, ECF No. 6. ... An official seeking to invoke the protections of qualified immunity “must demonstrate that (1) a plaintiff has not alleged or shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, or that (2) the right at issue was [not] clearly established at the time of its alleged violation.” Owens v. Balt. City State’s Att’ys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 395-96 (4th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when disputed facts could establish a violation of clearly established law.

Lee Rice, II v. Morehouse · filed 2021-03-08

He ultimately filed suit against the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Rice appeals the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in favor of the officers who tripped him to the ground. Because genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment, and the applicable law was clearly established at the time of the incident, we reverse.

Officials sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a clearly established federal right.

Washington v. Warden · filed 2021-03-08

Given that the prison officials here were performing discretionary duties, Washington must show (1) that the officials violated a constitutional right and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.