42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity can provide a ground for dismissing a Section 1983 claim.

Walker v. Bellnier · filed 2021-03-08

Fourth, and finally, in the alternative, the Court finds that qualified immunity constitutes an alternative ground on which to base the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for the reasons stated in Defendants’ memorandum of law.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim even when the court assumes the defendants violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Kalafi, G'esa v. Brown, Lebbeus · filed 2021-03-09

Further, even assuming, arguendo, that the confiscation of the state court’s order along with Kalafi’s letter violated Kalafi’s rights, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to officials who would reasonably know that a sham termination hearing denies an employee a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Lawless v. Town of Freetown · filed 2021-03-09

“The basic requirements of due process have long been settled” and “an objectively reasonable official would indubitably have known that depriving plaintiff of . . . a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . violated the fourteenth amendment.” Collins v. Marina–Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 481 (1st Cir. 1990). The Board members are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Snowden v. Solomon · filed 2021-03-10

Accordingly, Defendants- Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.

University officials acting within their discretionary authority have qualified immunity from a § 1983 employment discrimination claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time.

Jones v. Alabama A&M University · filed 2021-03-10

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Dr. Jones’s § 1983 claim against Drs. Hugine, Wims, and Martin.

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

TOMEI v. OFFICE OF THE 32ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT DELAWARE COUNTY · filed 2021-03-10

Because Plaintiffs have not identified a specific clearly established right that Ms. Martinez violated, she is entitled to qualified immunity, making the Third Amended Complaint futile on additional grounds.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when existing law does not clearly establish that their specific use of force was unlawful.

Spencer v. Pew · filed 2021-03-11

The Court agrees that it is not clearly established that officers cannot use significant force when an arrestee actively resists arrest, shows unusual strength, and refuses to submit to handcuffing despite multiple orders to do so. ... The Court finds that Defendants Rozema and Pew are entitled to qualified immunity from the excessive force claims.

A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Swanson v. Griffin · filed 2021-03-11

Given that Plaintiff has satisfied both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis with respect to the First Amendment viewpoint discrimination claim against Defendant Griffin, the Court concludes that Defendant Griffin is not entitled to qualified immunity as to that First Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against an official when the unlawfulness of the official’s conduct was not clearly established.

Gala v. The City of New York · filed 2021-03-11

It will be a close question as to whether defendants’ actions violated the First Amendment, and thus I cannot say that it was beyond debate at the time of the alleged retaliation. Accordingly, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity.

A public official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the official’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Baker v. Coburn · filed 2021-03-11

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Officer Coborn’s action violated clearly established law and thus Officer Coborn is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 action, proceedings should be stayed during an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity unless the appeal is frivolous or brought solely to delay trial.

Sexton v. Cernuto · filed 2021-03-12

The Court first addresses the parties’ dispute regarding the applicable standard to utilize in determining whether a stay is appropriate and holds that, under the applicable standard, a stay should be granted unless the appeal is frivolous or for the sole purpose of delay. ... Because Cernuto’s appeal is neither frivolous nor sought solely to delay trial, the Court grants Cernuto’s motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when no clearly established law would have made them aware that their conduct was unlawful.

Reed v. Hovey · filed 2021-03-12

And Hovey and Proehl have an even stronger argument, because they're entitled to qualified immunity. ... The plaintiffs have directed the Court to no authority, nor is the Court aware of any, clearly establishing that on the plaintiffs' evidence, Hovey or Proehl would have known their actions were unlawful.

Officials sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity on the pleadings when the complaint plausibly alleges that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Camelo v. Bristol-Warren Regional School District · filed 2021-03-12

Thus, the doctrine of qualified immunity cannot resolve the due process claim at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a false-arrest claim when the complaint does not plausibly allege that the officer lacked probable cause.

McCarty v. Sanches · filed 2021-03-12

As a result, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted.

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

Fissette v. Dzurenda · filed 2021-03-13

As a result, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for ignoring an inmate’s known risk of self-harm when the duty to intervene was clearly established.

McCaa v. Baumann · filed 2021-03-15

However, it was well-established in 2015 that if a prison official failed to address an inmate’s suicidal and self-harming tendencies after he was alerted to it, it would constitute deliberate indifference. ... As such, Baumann is not entitled to qualified immunity, and his motion for summary judgment is denied.

Section 1983 permits an excessive-force claim to proceed when disputed facts prevent summary judgment on a police officer’s qualified-immunity defense.

Thevenin v. French · filed 2021-03-15

In sum, we agree with the district court that French is not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage on plaintiff’s federal claim under Section 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of Thevenin’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a federal right.

Britton v. Keller · filed 2021-03-15

Because Ms. Britton has not demonstrated the district court erred in concluding the TNR program did not implicate the Takings Clause, the individual defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity under the first prong of that analysis.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer sued in an individual capacity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Monds v. Bennett · filed 2021-03-15

Here, because Plaintiff has not forecasted evidence that Officer Bennett violated a constitutional right, Officer Bennett is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's individual capacity claim.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s evidence fails to show a constitutional violation.

Torres v. Ball · filed 2021-03-15

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

The officers received qualified immunity from the § 1983 excessive force claim.

Boyd v. Baeppler · filed 2000-06-06

Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and grant the qualified immunity claims of both defendants.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment in a Section 1983 action when genuine factual disputes leave its application unclear.

Williams v. Landon Fox · filed 2021-03-16

Accordingly, it was also error to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as these genuine factual disputes make it unclear whether qualified immunity should apply at this stage of the case.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Miller v. Prentice · filed 2021-03-17

Because the law is not clearly established that Prentice used excessive force in violation of Miller’s Fourth Amendment rights, Prentice is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, an official’s failure to comply with a court order does not defeat qualified immunity when that failure is not the basis of the suit.

Cruz v. Decker · filed 2021-03-17

It is not enough that Decker violated a legal duty to comply with a court order if his noncompliance with that order was not the basis of the § 1983 suit.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Thompson v. State of Colorado, The · filed 2021-03-17

The Court finds that, even if defendant’s actions in restricting plaintiff’s communications with Dr. Lazorski and her students violated the First Amendment, the right was not clearly established such that plaintiff can defeat qualified immunity.

An officer who had probable cause to arrest and proceed against a suspect is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim.

Martinez v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission · filed 2021-03-17

Considering all the foregoing, the Court finds that Coyle did indeed have probable cause for arresting and proceeding against Martinez. As a result, Coyle is entitled to qualified immunity, and Martinez’s § 1983 claim against him must accordingly be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of clearly established law.

Shearer v. Bowen · filed 2000-05-24

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the district court erred in denying summary judgment to Bowen on the ground of qualified immunity and vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for entry of judgment for Bowen on qualified immunity grounds.

The deputy had qualified immunity from the § 1983 arrest claim.

Brass v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2001-03-19

Thus, Deputy Thurlo has qualified immunity and is not liable for the arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

L.G. v. Edwards · filed 2021-03-18

We therefore reverse the district court's order rejecting Edwards's request for qualified immunity and remand with directions that the district court dismiss L.G.'s § 1983 claim against Edwards.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint’s allegations, taken as true, do not support that defense.

Merriman v. Oswald · filed 2021-03-18

Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find dismissal on qualified immunity grounds at this time is inappropriate.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Bernabe v. Rosenbaum · filed 2021-03-18

In sum, even if Corporal Rosenbaum’s and Officer Insixiengmay’s respective conduct was excessive and violated Bernabe’s Fourth Amendment rights, each would still be entitled to qualified immunity. The Court, accordingly, will grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity in Defendants’ favor on the § 1983 claims against them on this basis.

Prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 right to petition claim when they refuse to process substantive grievances because an inmate left disrespectful language in them.

Richey v. Aiyeku · filed 2021-03-19

The law was well established before 2015 that disrespectful language in a grievance is protected speech, and a prison official violates the First Amendment when he or she refuses to allow the grievance to proceed through the administrative process if the inmate resubmits the grievance without rewriting it to remove the offensive language. ... The Court, therefore, follows the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit holding regarding Defendant Aiyeku and her handling of Plaintiff’s 25 grievances included in his original Complaint and finds that Defendants Aiyeku, Young, and Walker are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s right to petition claim with respect to the fifty total grievances at issue in the First Amended Complaint.

Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

O'Doan v. Sanford · filed 2021-03-19

We hold that O’Doan’s § 1983 claims fail because the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the circumstances.

Brown v. County of San Bernardino · filed 2021-03-19

The district court properly granted qualified immunity to McCracken for Brown’s claim alleging violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to care, custody, and control of her child based on McCracken’s retention and later transfer of her child to San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (“CFS”).

Jail officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint fails to plausibly allege deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety.

Letterman (ID 77872) v. Sedgwick County Jail · filed 2021-03-19

Defendants are only liable under § 1983 for their deliberate—not negligent—deprivation of constitutional rights. ... Because Plaintiff has only alleged that the threat relayed to the guards was a perceived one without corroborating facts, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Defendants were deliberately indifferent. Therefore, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity must be granted.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Burns v. Brewer · filed 2021-03-19

Even if Burns had fashioned a persuasive argument that defendants violated his constitutional rights when applying the business enterprise mail rule to his books, that violation would not have been clearly established. Thus, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

A disciplinary appeal officer sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity for failing to reverse an allegedly unconstitutional hearing when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Vidal v. The State of New York · filed 2021-03-19

“In actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, good faith or qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by the defendant officials.” ... Therefore, even if Plaintiff were to prevail in showing Venettozzi’s actions constituted a constitutional violation, Venettozzi would be entitled to qualified immunity because the right to an error-proof appeal officer is not clearly established at the time of Venettozzi’s appeal decision.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 substantive due process claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendants’ conduct violated a federal right.

Johnson v. Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2021-03-19

Additionally, because Plaintiff failed to argue that the actions of any individual defendant were conscious shocking, beyond a single statement set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to overcome Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 substantive due process claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law prohibited the officer’s use of force.

Senn v. Smith · filed 2021-03-19

The Court concludes that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the incident and summary judgment based on qualified immunity is therefore denied.

Qualified immunity does not protect officers from a Section 1983 claim when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, their detention violated clearly established law.

PIERRE v. POLICE OFFICER CLARKE · filed 2021-03-19

But at this stage of the proceedings, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Pierre, Officers Clarke and Norton detained Mr. Pierre for reasons that the law clearly did not allow.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct.

Weber v. Reif · filed 2021-03-22

The Court will focus its attention on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, under which Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly established that Officer Reif’s use of lethal force was unreasonable. ... As such, Officer Reif has qualified immunity from suit.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 conspiracy claim when it was not clearly established that agreements among officers of the same agency could create conspiracy liability.

Franklin v. St. Louis County, Missouri · filed 2021-03-22

Given the uncertainty regarding the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in § 1983 cases, the officers could not have reasonably known in 2015 that their actions might expose them to liability for a conspiracy. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to Franklin’s conspiracy claims.

Officers sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 may obtain summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Hylton v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Dona Ana · filed 2021-03-22

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Gamboa’s and Terrazas’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity as to Count I (Doc. 54). Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants’ motion is WELL-TAKEN and, therefore, is GRANTED.

A defendant may receive qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Easley v. Hollibaugh · filed 2021-03-22

The Court, however, cannot conclude that it is clearly established that an inmate has a right to use disrespectful and harassing language in a grievance. ... The Court, therefore, will grant Defendant Hollibaugh’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that she is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when, on the prisoner’s version of the facts, no threat justified pinning a compliant handcuffed inmate under the officer’s full weight despite his pleas that he could not breathe.

Sims v. Diaz · filed 2021-03-23

On those facts, and with the absence of evidence of some other danger, a reasonable official would not have thought it lawful to pin a compliant handcuffed inmate on the ground, place the official’s full body weight on the inmate’s back, push the inmate’s shoulders to the ground, and refuse to relent when the inmate protested he could not breathe. ... C/O McDonald has not established his entitlement to qualified immunity against the excessive force claim.

An officer acting within discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of clearly established constitutional law.

Thorkelson v. Carmine Marceno · filed 2021-03-23

Because the parties agree that Captain Casale was acting within his discretionary authority when he shot Thorkelson, this appeal turns on whether he is entitled to qualified immunity. See id.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

KEEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS · filed 2021-03-23

Considering the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Keen had no clearly established right to be further accommodated by having the handcuffs moved to the front at risk to officer safety.

A school official may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 equal protection claim when the complaint alleges no facts showing the official’s discriminatory state of mind.

Rajasundaram v. Maricopa County Community College District · filed 2021-03-24

The right to equal protection in employment is clearly established. However, the question is whether, by removing Plaintiff from her program director position and not renewing her contract, Wise knowingly violated that right. ... Therefore, because of the lack of allegations about Wise’s state of mind, qualified immunity applies to Wise.

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

Sambrano v. Moreno · filed 2021-03-24

Plaintiff plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right because she alleges her phone was seized without a warrant and no reasonable officer, under the circumstances alleged, would believe that an exception to the Fourth Amendment applies.

Qualified immunity may be denied at summary judgment on a § 1983 retaliation claim when disputed facts could establish retaliation for opposing race discrimination, a right clearly established by February 2017.

Sheppard v. Coleman · filed 2021-03-24

The right to be free from retaliation under sections 1983 and 1981 for opposing race discrimination was clearly established on February 10, 2017.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when, on the plaintiffs’ evidence, no reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause for the traffic stop.

Hudson v. Freivald · filed 2021-03-25

The court is convinced that no reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to initiate a traffic stop under these circumstances, much less a stop outside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, Freivald is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Oscar Garcia , III v. Pope · filed 2021-03-25

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Garcia’s deliberate indifference claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct in providing Garcia with a warm/hot shower as part of decontamination procedures after he was pepper sprayed did not violate clearly established law.

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability under Section 1983 when her conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Holmon v. Hawkins · filed 2021-03-25

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

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Clay (ID 102093) v. Hydro · filed 2021-03-25

At least one of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis recognized in Pearson dictates that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from Mr. Clay’s claims against him for the events of October 9, 2019. That immunity warrants granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment against Mr. Clay’s § 1983 claims.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show that reasonable officers would have known their conduct was unlawful.

Estridge v. Town of Ware · filed 2021-03-25

Based on the allegations in the complaint, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for remaining on Plaintiff's property under the first and second prongs of the qualified immunity test.

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

WRIGHT CROFT v. DONEGAL TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-03-25

We conclude that it was not, and, therefore, that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting a pleaded qualified-immunity defense by showing a violation of a clearly established right.

Stokes v. Hocker · filed 2021-03-26

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

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when a reasonable officer could believe there was probable cause to arrest and reasonable suspicion to detain.

Littles v. Molloy · filed 2021-03-28

In sum, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim of false arrest based on qualified immunity.

A plaintiff cannot overcome an officer’s qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim without showing that the officer violated a constitutional right.

Harvey v. Butcher · filed 2021-03-29

Because the court concludes that Simpson’s conduct during his traffic stop of Mr. Harvey did not violate Mr. Harvey’s constitutional rights, the court finds that Mr. Harvey has not met his burden to establish that qualified immunity does not apply.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against an officer whose use of deadly force violates clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Southworth v. Jones · filed 2021-03-29

Qualified immunity does not protect Jones from Southworth’s Fourth Amendment claim at this stage of litigation.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for ignoring an explicit complaint that handcuffs are painfully tight.

Ketcham v. City of Mount Vernon · filed 2021-03-29

Accordingly, it would be unreasonable for officers to believe that ignoring Ketcham’s cries to loosen the over-tight, non-double-locked restraints did not violate clearly established law. If credited by a jury, Ketcham’s testimony indicates Patterson did just that. We therefore reject his qualified immunity defense as to the handcuffing allegations.

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

Cibulka v. City of Madison · filed 2021-03-29

The officers are entitled to qualified immunity because at no point did they violate Todd Cibulka’s clearly established rights.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when disputed facts could show that an officer tased a detainee after he was subdued.

Davis v. Lake County Jail · filed 2021-03-29

Given the dispute of fact as to whether Davis was subdued after the first tase, the Court concludes that Abbott is sufficiently analogous to preclude granting Defendants summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits an excessive force claim against a state officer to proceed to trial when disputed facts prevent resolution of the officer’s qualified immunity defense at summary judgment.

Bradley v. DuPage County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-03-29

For the reasons stated, genuine disputes of material fact require a trial on defendant Scott Kuschell’s claim of qualified immunity for violating the Fourth Amendment.

Qualified immunity does not shield a correctional officer from a § 1983 claim when she knows a detainee faces serious harm from a superior’s denial of medical care and does nothing.

Conners v. Pohlmann · filed 2021-03-29

Becnel first argues she is entitled to qualified immunity because the law in this area is not clearly established. This argument is meritless. ... Knowing that her superior was violating Henry’s rights by denying her medical care, it was not reasonable for Becnel to do nothing.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim while material facts about the officers’ conduct remain disputed.

Germain v. Gilpin · filed 2021-03-29

Because material issues of fact are in dispute, the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on these claims on the basis of qualified immunity.

A court may deny a motion to dismiss a § 1983 claim on qualified-immunity grounds when factual development is needed to determine whether the asserted right was clearly established.

Davis v. Bouck · filed 2021-03-29

Suffice it to say that at this stage of the case, it is too early to frame the right at issue to discern whether it was clearly established. Discovery is necessary to flesh out the facts further. Accordingly, mindful that the dismissal stage is generally not the appropriate time to resolve questions about qualified immunity, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Buckles v. Crowe · filed 2021-03-29

Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Cavan and finds that the right has not been clearly established such that Dawson County facility officials would have been on notice that their actions in failing to construct a sweat lodge violated Buckles’ constitutional rights.

Officers sued under Section 1983 for false arrest or false imprisonment may receive qualified immunity when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Jimenez Jr. v. City of New Rochelle · filed 2021-03-29

Defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to these claims. ... The Court agrees as to both arguments.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when objectively unreasonable force violates a detainee’s clearly established constitutional right.

McGovern v. Lucas County, Ohio and the Lucas County Board of Commissioners · filed 2021-03-29

Therefore, I conclude Hobbs is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to McGovern’s § 1983 claim arising from that initial physical contact.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 excessive-force claim unless the evidence supports a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Jacobsen v. Klinefelter · filed 2021-03-30

To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, Jacobsen must show that the evidence would support a finding that Klinefelter violated Jacobsen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, and that the right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the officer violates a clearly established right.

Koger v. Carson · filed 2021-03-30

As relevant here, Koger filed suit against Carson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. ... For these reasons, Carson is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the defense depends on body-camera footage the court cannot consider at the pleading stage.

Turner v. Board of County Commissioners of Pueblo County · filed 2021-03-30

Therefore, the County Defendants’ argument that Judge Tafoya erred in denying qualified immunity because she declined to review the body-worn camera footage is unavailing.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the arrest warrant affidavit establishes arguable probable cause and the plaintiff fails to show that the officer knowingly included false information.

Rhodes v. Robbins · filed 2021-03-30

Because the statements in the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant establish at least arguable probable cause that Rhodes was committing insurance fraud, and because Rhodes has failed to point to evidence creating an issue for trial on his claim that Robbins knowingly included false information in the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant, Robbins is entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 suit, a defendant who moves for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is ordinarily entitled to a stay of discovery while the court resolves the motion.

Silversmith v. Martin · filed 2021-03-30

The Court is unpersuaded that this case should be excluded from the general rule that, when a defendant files a motion asserting the defense of qualified immunity, he is entitled to a stay of discovery.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officials in their position would not have known their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Bodewig v. Matteucci · filed 2021-03-30

Alternatively, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Reasonable state officials in defendants’ position would not have known that their medical treatment would constitute deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 retaliation claim when a material factual dispute remains about the officer’s reason for acting.

Evans v. Deacon · filed 2021-03-30

Further, it is a question of fact whether Sgt. Olvera issued the misconduct report to further a legitimate correctional goal of prohibiting false information. Accordingly, I deny summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages when the rights at issue were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Meshell v. Steward · filed 2021-03-30

Accordingly, Defendants are, alternatively, entitled to qualified immunity.

A dispute of material fact about a defendant’s knowledge of an inmate’s medical condition can preclude qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim.

Dorsey v. Kennedy · filed 2021-03-31

Insofar as Nurse Kennedy argues she is entitled to qualified immunity, “[d]isputes of material facts preclude awarding qualified immunity or summary judgment.” ... As such, Kennedy’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity 1s denied.

Government officials sued for damages under Section 1983 have qualified immunity unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

R. W. v. Columbia Basin College · filed 2021-03-31

We reverse the denial of qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison officer from a Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim when clearly established law required reasonable measures to protect inmates from prisoner violence.

(PC) Martin v. Her · filed 2021-03-31

Additionally, this court agrees that defendant Her is not protected by qualified immunity in the face of the claim that defendant Her failed to intervene after the fight broke out.

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

(PS) Gunn v. County of Butte · filed 2021-03-31

Defendants Ramsey, Tufano, Honea, and Thao are thus entitled to qualified immunity in the face of the First Amended Complaint’s federal claims.

Section 1983 shields an officer from an excessive force claim through qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish that the force was unconstitutional in the circumstances.

Amaral v. City of San Diego · filed 2021-03-31

Given the above undisputed material facts, supra, the Court finds Williams is entitled to qualified immunity. On November 9, 2016, it was not clearly established that the use of force at issue in the situation Williams confronted was excessive – even viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

Officers sued under Section 1983 for excessive force may be denied qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts bear on whether their use of force was reasonable.

Diaz v. City of Hartford Police Department · filed 2021-03-31

Given these applicable legal principles, it is clear that in an excessive force case, the issue of qualified immunity necessarily overlaps considerably with the question of liability on the underlying claim, as both require an assessment of the objective reasonableness of the arresting officer’s conduct. ... Thus, given Diaz’s testimony that he fully surrendered after the car stopped at Flatbush Avenue, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ use of force against Diaz was reasonable under the circumstances. ... Therefore, Officers Bojka, Allen, Fogg, Colon, and Detective Mastroianni are not entitled to summary judgment with respect to Diaz’s Section 1983 claim for excessive force.

A state official sued for damages under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Tanksley v. Rice County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-03-31

In the absence of a plausible claim for violations of the First or Fourteenth Amendment, defendant Sheriff Evans deserves qualified immunity against plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim when genuine factual disputes affect the defense.

Grant v. Gusman · filed 2021-03-31

Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute and Secretary LeBlanc is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of qualified immunity. Accordingly, the Court denies DOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Secretary LeBlanc in his individual capacity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of arrest.

Niewenhous v. Burns · filed 2021-03-31

Thus, even if the common nuisance statute were interpreted as plaintiffs argue, such an interpretation was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ arrests, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted legal rule was not clearly established at the time of arrest.

Delavega v. Burns · filed 2021-03-31

Thus, even if the common nuisance statute were interpreted as plaintiffs argue, such an interpretation was not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ arrests, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A Section 1983 complaint against an officer must allege facts sufficient to state a claim and overcome qualified immunity.

Minor v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · filed 2021-03-31

The minimal allegations of fact are wholly insufficient to state a claim under Section 1983, much less overcome Sullivant’s qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 qualified immunity can shield an officer from liability when the officer had arguable probable cause; disputed facts about probable cause can prevent summary judgment on that defense.

Todd v. Park City 3 & 4 Apartments, Inc. · filed 2021-03-31

For the reasons set forth above, there are disputed issues of material fact as to whether there was arguable probable cause to support the seizure. ... Accordingly, qualified immunity is not warranted.

A § 1983 claim may be dismissed when the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Morrison v. Vine · filed 2021-03-31

On February 25, 2021, Judge Feldman issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that the defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted because they were entitled to qualified immunity and that Morrison should not ... be given leave to amend. ... Based on that review and the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R’s recommendation to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss and to deny Morrison leave to amend.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against corrections officials for releasing inmates’ personal information to a third-party vendor when the asserted privacy right was not clearly established.

Locke v. Wetzel · filed 2021-03-31

Again, however, the Court has not located any relevant Supreme Court or Third Circuit precedent holding that corrections officials’ decisions to release inmates’ personal information, including their Social Security numbers, to a third-party vendor violates the Fourteenth Amendment such that the right was clearly established to defeat the application of qualified immunity.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the plaintiff has not shown that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Shelley v. Stirling · filed 2021-03-31

Plaintiff has not shown that it is clearly established that the PS-10.05 policy violated his right to free exercise of religion in prison.

An officer sued individually under Section 1983 has qualified immunity unless the officer violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Roque v. Harvel · filed 2021-04-01

The defense of qualified immunity therefore protects public officials “sued in their individual capacities ‘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.’”

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim against officers when no genuine dispute shows they acted with deliberate indifference.

Morgan v. Wayne County · filed 2021-04-01

Consequently, the court was correct in finding that no genuine dispute existed with regards to whether Clark and Davis acted with deliberate indifference, and the court declines to revisit the finding that both officers should be granted qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim while material facts about the officials’ conduct remain disputed.

Lee v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-01

The objective reasonableness of the Defendants conduct taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff supports denial of summary judgment.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their personal capacities are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Sheppard v. Visitors of VSU · filed 2021-04-02

Last, we consider Sheppard’s due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This claim can be quickly disposed of on the basis of qualified immunity. ... We agree with the district court that Debose is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to continued enrollment in higher education, and, having so concluded, we need not evaluate whether or not Sheppard received procedural due process.

Section 1983 does not permit a claim against a public official protected by qualified immunity unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Perry v. Adams · filed 2021-04-05

Because Adams is a public official asserting a defense of qualified immunity, she is immune from suit under § 1983 unless her actions violated constitutional or statutory rights that were clearly established at the time of the violation.

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

Pitcher v. Garrett · filed 2021-04-05

County Defendants, thus, are protected from suit by qualified immunity.

A police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 false arrest claim when, taking the plaintiff’s evidence as true, no reasonable officer could find probable cause for the arrest.

Gatling v. West · filed 2021-04-06

In particular, any reasonable officer would conclude that whatever limited corroboration those facts could plausibly provide for the 911 call were undermined by all of the other objective facts demonstrating no driver impairment (including the lack of erratic driving for one-half mile and the passing of all of the field sobriety tests), and that no probable cause for arrest existed. Accordingly, summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is unwarranted.

Government officials sued for damages in their individual capacities under § 1983 may claim qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Hardigree v. Lofton · filed 2021-04-06

Qualified immunity protects government officials who are sued under § 1983 for money damages in their individual capacities. Immunity is appropriate so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages under Section 1983 unless the alleged facts show a violation of a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known was unlawful.

Monk v. Alvernon Rogers · filed 2021-04-07

In this case, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Monk’s federal claims are barred by qualified immunity. Assuming that Monk has a constitutional right to send letters to his elected officials, Monk has failed to allege facts that Rogers’s conduct in communicating the inaccurate report deprived him of that right such that a reasonable person would have known that his actions were unlawful.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from § 1983 liability when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional or statutory violation.

Jaymes Stark v. Lee County IA · filed 2021-04-07

Because we conclude that Sproul is entitled to qualified immunity under the deliberate indifference standard, we need not make a definitive ruling on which standard should apply.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Peroza-Benitez v. Smith · filed 2021-04-08

So we will vacate the Dis- trict Court’s finding that C.I. Haser was entitled to qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings.

Government officials may raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to Section 1983 claims.

L.C. VS. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1292-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) · filed 2021-04-09

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that may be raised where claims are brought against a government official pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJCRA.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when no constitutional violation occurred.

Williams v. City of Stanford, Kentucky · filed 2021-04-09

Thus, the Court’s conclusion that the Estate’s constitutional rights were not violated leads a fortiori to the conclusion that Knouse is entitled to immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield social workers from § 1983 liability for alleged judicial deception in obtaining orders for children’s medical examinations.

Benavidez v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-04-12

Lisk and Jemison are not entitled to qualified immunity for unconstitutional judicial deception.

Officials sued for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983 may assert qualified immunity when the complaint fails to allege a constitutional violation.

Johnson v. Bowe · filed 2021-04-12

Bowe and Rodriguez are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities against Johnson’s First Amendment retaliation claims as they are currently pleaded.

A defendant who did not raise qualified immunity in the district court cannot obtain that defense on appeal from a § 1983 claim.

Talley v. Clark · filed 2021-04-14

First, while Appellees argue they are qualifiedly immune from Talley’s Eighth Amendment claims, this argument fails because they did not invoke qualified immunity in the District Court.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on individual-capacity claims when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Williams v. Kizer · filed 2021-04-14

Here, because Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that Defendants Kizer and Kinser violated a constitutional right, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's individual capacity claims.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 state-created danger claim when the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Berg v. Bethel School District · filed 2021-04-19

C.K.M.’s rights were not clearly established at the time of the constitutional violation, and Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity. Summary judgment is therefore granted, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiffs’ § 1983 state-created danger claim as to the Individual Defendants is dismissed with prejudice.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent did not give them fair notice that their conduct was unlawful.

Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2021-04-19

As neither plaintiff nor the district court has pointed us to existing precedent that squarely governs the specific facts and circumstances of this appeal that would have given Deputies Paschal and Wiggins fair notice that their conduct was unlawful, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment in a Section 1983 action when material factual disputes determine whether officers violated clearly established rights.

Jones v. Mora · filed 2021-04-19

Because resolution of these factual disputes is critical to a proper determination of Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, summary judgment on qualified immunity is inappropriate.

An individual defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Cuervo v. Salazar · filed 2021-04-19

Because Cuervo has not demonstrated that Defendants violated a clearly established right in conducting the search of her property, she has not met her burden to overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 qualified immunity inquiry, the relevant violation is of the Constitution or federal law, not police policy.

Tomlinson v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit · filed 2021-04-19

First, the qualified-immunity inquiry in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is focused on a violation of the Constitution or of federal law, not of police policy.

Qualified immunity protects an official from a § 1983 claim when the official did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Herridge v. Montgomery County, Texas · filed 2021-04-20

There being no First Amendment violation by Williams, the Court need not move on to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis—Williams is afforded qualified immunity against Herridge’s First Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 suit when the complaint plausibly alleges that they violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Niewolak v. City of Highland Park, Mich. · filed 2021-04-20

Qualified immunity shields officers from suit unless they violated a right that was clearly established when they acted. ... Niewolak’s allegations fit neatly within our prior holdings. Thus, he has plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established constitutional rights.

Section 1983 claims against officials are subject to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established.

Alejandre v. County of San Joaquin · filed 2021-04-20

Because plaintiffs fail to identify sufficiently specific constitutional precedents to alert defendants that their particular conduct was unlawful, all defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical care and failure to summon medical care under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff cannot show that clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct.

Batyukova v. Doege · filed 2021-04-21

We conclude that Batyukova failed to identify clearly established law prohibiting Deputy Doege’s use of deadly force. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on her excessive-force claim is affirmed.

An officer may receive qualified immunity on a § 1983 unlawful arrest claim when probable cause for the arrest was reasonably arguable.

Close v. City of Vacaville · filed 2021-04-21

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Tan on Close’s unlawful arrest claim on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against a public official when the challenged conduct did not violate clearly established law at the time.

Wagschal v. Skoufis · filed 2021-04-22

Qualified immunity therefore precludes Wagschal’s damages claim against Skoufis for blocking him in 2018.

A plaintiff abandons a challenge to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim on appeal by failing to address whether the asserted right was clearly established.

Mayton v. Casas · filed 2021-04-22

Mayton’s briefs—even when liberally construed—do not acknowledge the second prong: Mayton makes no attempt to show that the relevant rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. So Mayton has abandoned any argument that Constable Aguilar and Deputy Casas are not entitled to qualified immunity from his Section 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged facts show a violation of a clearly established right.

Nicolini v. Arizona Board of Regents · filed 2021-04-23

Nicolini’s allegations are sufficiently analogous to the facts in Eng to defeat qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings. ... Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Nicolini’s First Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds is denied.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law did not give them notice that their conduct violated a plaintiff’s rights.

McNeil v. Indiana Parole Dept · filed 2021-04-23

As outlined above, there is no clearly established law that would have put Officer Griffin on notice that he was violating Mr. McNeil’s Eighth Amendment rights by not allowing him to immediately leave his parole district after he expressed concerns for his safety. ... Therefore, Officer Griffin is entitled to qualified immunity.

When officials assert qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim, a court may require the plaintiff to file a Rule 7(a) reply detailing each official’s conduct.

Jimerson v. Lewis · filed 2021-04-23

Because the complaint lacks specificity and particularity as to each defendant’s individual conduct, a Rule 7(a) reply is warranted.

Employees of large private firms systematically organized to provide correctional healthcare for profit are categorically ineligible for qualified immunity in § 1983 suits.

Sanchez v. Oliver · filed 2021-04-26

Because we can find no tradition of immunity at common law to support Oliver’s claim to qualified immunity, and the purposes of qualified immunity, on balance, weigh against extending immunity, we hold that Oliver, as an employee of a large firm “systematically organized to perform a major administrative task for profit,” is categorically ineligible to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 may receive qualified immunity when they reasonably rely on a judicially authorized search warrant.

Phillips v. City Of Chicago · filed 2021-04-26

Therefore the Defendants other than Cutrone are entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims other than excessive force.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when controlling precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Art Tobias v. Arteaga · filed 2021-04-27

Because controlling precedent does not establish “beyond debate” that the officers’ conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

Krause v. County of Mohave · filed 2021-04-28

In the alternative, the district court correctly found that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force and denial of medical care claims because Plaintiff does not point to any controlling case law that “squarely governs the specific facts at issue,” City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 503 (2019) (per curiam), such that the police officers would have had notice that alleged unlawfulness is “apparent” in “light of pre-existing law[.]” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987).

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law would not have alerted a reasonable official that the conduct was unlawful.

Thompson v. Saukhla · filed 2021-04-28

Nurse Portugal is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment.

Qualified immunity does not apply to claims for declaratory relief under Section 1983, but it may apply to damages claims against individual officials.

Hibbs v. Mercer · filed 2021-04-28

Specifically, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for declaratory relief, which would not be subject to qualified immunity, would result in discovery of the same information that would be relevant to his Eighth Amendment claims for monetary damages, which potentially would be subject to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer acting within discretionary authority unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Smith v. Allen · filed 2021-04-28

Therefore, since Smith presents no triable issues of fact as to a constitutional violation, Allen is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

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

Silversmith v. Martin · filed 2021-04-28

For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff 2 has failed to demonstrate that his rights were violated under § 1983 and the burdens attendant to Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, discovery may be stayed when defendants plan to seek summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

McPeek v. Klimek · filed 2021-04-28

Because DOC Defendants claim they are filing a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, staying discovery is appropriate.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when using a police dog to apprehend a fleeing suspect is objectively reasonable.

Hinson v. Martin · filed 2021-04-29

Hinson has therefore failed to establish that Martin violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using Rex to apprehend him, and the district court erred by denying Martin summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to Hinson’s claims insofar as they are based on the initial dog bite that brought him to the ground.

Section 1983 officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages when the law did not clearly establish that their specific conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Gala v. The City of New York · filed 2021-04-29

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint alleging the additional instances of failure to promote, but the Commissioner remains dismissed from this action on the basis of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 excessive force claims against police officers may proceed when factual disputes prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Snow v. Rochester Police Officer Christopher Schreier · filed 2021-04-30

For similar reasons, we conclude that defendants failed to establish that they were entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force cause of action on the ground of qualified immunity ( see Lennox v Miller , 968 F3d 150, 157 [2d Cir 2020]).

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 damages when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Bell v. Lopez · filed 2021-04-30

Lopez is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs excessive force claim.

In a Section 1983 trial, the court may use special interrogatories to obtain the jury’s factual findings before deciding qualified immunity.

McCollum v. Robeson County · filed 2021-05-04

The Court agrees that the use of special interrogatories will provide it with specific facts found by the jury upon which to base its determination of whether all or any of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when the evidence raises a factual dispute about his subjective knowledge of unconstitutional confinement conditions.

Hammonds v. Prime Care Medical of West Virginia, Inc. · filed 2021-05-05

Therefore, as Plaintiff has presented evidence to satisfy both the objective and subjective requirements to defeat qualified immunity, the Court DENIES Defendant Wolfe’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

An officer sued under § 1983 for a mistaken search is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the officer violated clearly established law.

Norris v. Jermaine Hicks · filed 2021-05-05

While the mistaken raid of Norris’s home was no doubt traumatic, given the significant factual differences between Capt. Cody’s actions in the raid and our prior precedent, we agree with the district court that Norris failed to meet his burden to show that Capt. Cody violated clearly established law.

Section 1983 allows an individual official to claim qualified immunity when the constitutional right allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time.

Martley v. Basehor, Kansas, City of · filed 2021-05-07

Martley has not done that. And on the facts alleged, Lincoln has held that the question is not clearly established. Accordingly, Rivarola is entitled to qualified immunity on Martley’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable officer could have believed the force was permissible under the circumstances.

Bongiorno v. Pirelli · filed 2021-05-07

Even assuming Defendant’s use of force was excessive, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable police officer could have believed that the Defendant’s takedown of Plaintiff was a permissible response to the Plaintiffs attempt to escape.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows that he allowed a police dog to keep biting a handcuffed and subdued suspect in violation of clearly established law.

Castro v. Martin · filed 2021-05-10

Although the parties make various arguments about the legality of the entire exercise of force, this appeal turns solely on the 12 to 26 seconds that passed between when Castro was “handcuffed and subdued” and when the K9 released its bite. ... “Our caselaw is clear that an officer cannot direct a police dog to continue biting a suspect who has fully surrendered and is under the officer’s control.” ... The evidence, viewed in Castro’s favor, thus supports a violation of clearly established law.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no clearly established right.

T.S.H. v. Green · filed 2021-05-11

The officers thus did not violate the students’ clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment, so they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

A government official sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established right.

Jennings v. Abbott · filed 2021-05-11

As a result, the qualified immunity defense applies as to plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim against Davidson for violation of family association rights, and the claim must be dismissed.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 false arrest claim if the warrant affidavit, including omitted information, would establish arguable probable cause.

Martelli v. Sheriff Thomas Knight · filed 2021-05-14

But because this is a qualified immunity case, she must instead show that the “affidavit[] (including the omitted information) would [not] have demonstrated even arguable probable cause.”

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 failure-to-intervene claim when the duty to intervene was not clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Weichel v. Town of Braintree · filed 2021-05-14

As a result, it was not clearly established in 1980 that Whelan had a duty to intervene, and he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to that claim.

Individual defendants have qualified immunity from a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim when existing precedent did not clearly establish the asserted privacy right in juvenile records.

Nunes v. Stephens · filed 2021-05-17

Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the Court grants qualified immunity to individual Defendants Carrie Stephens, Brad Swingle, and Amanda Heitlinger on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages unless the plaintiff raises a genuine issue of fact that the official violated a constitutional right clearly established at the time.

Witherow v. Lea Baker · filed 2021-05-18

Because Baker did not violate any Fourth Amendment right that was clearly established at the time of her challenged conduct, we hold that she is entitled to qualified immunity.