42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Tucker v. City of Shreveport · filed 2021-05-18

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

A public official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Haddock v. Tarrant · filed 2021-05-18

As explained above, Baca-Bennett did not violate Haddock’s constitutional rights; this is enough for Baca-Bennett to be entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the complaint establishes probable cause to arrest for any offense.

Taylor v. Rosa · filed 2021-05-19

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the facts alleged show they had probable cause to arrest Taylor for any offense.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law prohibited their conduct.

Larios v. Lunardi · filed 2021-05-19

We may address either question first, see id., and if the answer is “no,” then the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that no clearly established law prohibited the search of Larios’s text messages or the creation of a backup of his cell phone data during the course of a workplace investigation.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Bezis v. City of Livermore · filed 2021-05-19

Finally, the district court did not err in finding that Bezis had alleged no facts to overcome the individual Appellees’ qualified immunity. To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct at issue.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 liability when they lack fair notice that their conduct violates clearly established law.

Duncan v. Bibb County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-05-19

Therefore, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields them both from § 1983 liability.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a Section 1983 takings claim on the theory that Knick later changed the requirement to pursue state remedies first.

Deiter v. City of Wilkes Barre · filed 2021-05-19

Defendants’ qualified immunity argument is without merit. ... Defendants should understand that Knick had no impact on whether the underlying right to just compensation when the government takes private property for public use, as is explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, was clearly established as of 2015 for purposes of qualified immunity.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Reyes v. Larimer County Planning Dept. · filed 2021-05-24

Moreover, Mr. Reyes has also failed to direct this court to any relevant precedent on appeal. His failure to demonstrate a clearly established right means that Mr. Jensen was entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim when, on the plaintiff’s version of the disputed facts, an officer sought an arrest warrant without a reasonable basis to identify the suspect in violation of clearly established law.

Jacobs v. Perry · filed 2021-05-25

That being the case, then Perry violated clearly established law. Accordingly, he is not entitled to qualified immunity and the Court will deny his motion for summary judgment.

Qualified immunity did not bar a § 1983 excessive-force claim at the pleading stage where the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

SHEPPERSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2021-05-25

At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept Plaintiff’s plausible allegations as true, therefore, Hernandez was on notice based on the clearly established right to be free from being “slammed” to the floor without any need to maintain or restore discipline. The Court will deny Hernandez’s motion to dismiss the excessive force claim based on qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when the asserted right was not clearly established when they acted.

Derrick Oden, Sr. v. Acebedo · filed 2021-05-26

Here, the district courts properly found that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the “right to be free from heightened risk of Valley Fever was not clearly established when the officials acted.” Id. at 1228.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when the record does not conclusively establish that the officer’s use of force was lawful.

Johnny Banks v. Hawkins · filed 2021-05-27

Where the record does not conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer’s use of force, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is inappropriate.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Bryce Masters v. Runnels · filed 2021-05-27

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

An officer cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 excessive force claim when material factual disputes remain about whether the officer violated a clearly established right.

Garza v. Hector Perez, SAPD Officer · filed 2021-05-28

Because the same factual disputes pertinent to determining whether Officer Perez violated Garza’s clearly established constitutional rights are material to deciding whether Officer Perez is entitled to qualified immunity, Defendant Perez’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to his defense of qualified immunity.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established right.

Doe v. White · filed 2021-06-01

Because the district court correctly concluded that Doe has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established property or liberty interest, we affirm.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established Fourth Amendment law made their warrantless search unlawful.

Young v. Hauri · filed 2021-06-01

We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment on Katzenjammer’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 procedural due process claim based on the right to an impartial tribunal when defendants do not dispute that the right was clearly established.

Jordan v. Steward · filed 2021-06-01

Defendants did not object to the Recommendation, nor do they contend that Plaintiff lacks a clearly established right to an impartial tribunal in school disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, qualified immunity does not bar the case from going forward on Plaintiff's procedural due process claim against Defendant Steward premised on the right to an impartial tribunal.

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

Connell v. Nurse Sandvig · filed 2021-06-03

Therefore, Defendants Godwin, Gaskin, Sandvig, and Victores are entitled to qualified immunity.

A prosecutor is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 fabrication of evidence claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Truman v. Orem City · filed 2021-06-04

Mr. Truman’s allegations are sufficient to overcome the prosecutor’s claim of qualified immunity. He plausibly alleges (1) the prosecutor’s actions violated his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the prosecutor’s conduct.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 claim unless the officer violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time.

Smith-Dandridge v. Geanolous · filed 2021-06-04

Despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, no reasonable jury could find the Washington County Defendants knew Bell presented a substantial suicide risk. ... Washington County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can shield government officials from liability under Section 1983, but officials must support that defense with evidence at summary judgment.

Stewart v. Precythe · filed 2021-06-04

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 action unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known. ... In the absence of any testimony whatsoever from any of the CO Defendants regarding their conduct and intent, the Court cannot say Defendants have made “a properly supported motion for summary judgment” and thus have not established that they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the alleged conduct violated clearly established rights.

Abubardar v. Henriquez · filed 2021-06-07

At this stage, however, Henriquez is not entitled to qualified immunity and dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims is unwarranted.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity at summary judgment when material facts about an officer’s response to serious medical complaints remain disputed.

WEST v. Maxson · filed 2021-06-07

Because the factual basis of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment remains subject to a dispute that must be resolved by a jury, the court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff facing a qualified immunity defense may be required to file a Schultea reply with specific facts about each defendant’s conduct.

Flynt v. Jasper County, Mississippi · filed 2021-06-07

Accordingly, the Court finds that a Schultea reply is merited as to the Plaintiff’s Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an officer when the evidence supports a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Williams v. White · filed 2021-06-07

Siciak, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

An officer sued individually under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when the force used was constitutionally reasonable.

Wilkins v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma · filed 2021-06-07

Accordingly, the Court finds that Officers Rangel, Emberton and Mortenson have properly invoked the complete defense of qualified immunity, and are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against them for use of excessive force.

Government actors sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to state a claim that they violated a statutory or constitutional right.

Rodemaker v. Shumphard · filed 2021-06-08

Having concluded that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Rodemaker failed to state a claim, we needn’t decide whether the law was clearly established.

A defendant may obtain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a genuine factual dispute that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Luna v. Collier · filed 2021-06-09

The plaintiff must therefore present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established so that a reasonable official in the defendant’s situation would have understood that his conduct violated that right.

Officials are protected by qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when it was objectively reasonable for them to believe they could take the challenged action.

Cardillo, Jr. v. Town of Stockbridge · filed 2021-06-09

Accordingly, even if Flynn’s and Chabon’s actions did violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, they are protected by qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants cannot obtain qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint and video do not establish the defense.

MILLER v. BURGETT · filed 2021-06-09

Given that this qualified immunity argument is presented at the pleading stage and the video footage does not unequivocally support the defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the defendants’ argument is rejected.

A child services caseworker is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 familial integrity claim unless the plaintiffs show that the caseworker violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Komoscar v. Pence · filed 2021-06-10

The Komoscars bear the burden of showing that Loomis is not immune, which they can do if they demonstrate “(1) the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time, so that a reasonable state actor would know her conduct was unlawful.” ... Loomis is entitled to qualified immunity on this argument.

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

COLLICK v. WILLIAM PATERSON UNIVERSITY · filed 2021-06-10

Because probable cause existed, there was no constitutional violation, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Bird v. Easton · filed 2021-06-11

Thus, as the district court held, the question raised by Bird’s amended complaint was whether Easton established qualified immunity against Bird’s access-to-courts claim assuming that Easton mistakenly determined the WMRP was the incorrect forum for those claims. And in light of the existing authorities, it was not obvious that such conduct constituted a constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity is unavailable to an official sued only in her official capacity under § 1983.

A Brighter Day v. Barnes · filed 2021-06-14

Because Barnes was sued in her official capacity, she can’t invoke qualified immunity.

Defendants in a Section 1983 action may be entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that they infringed an inmate’s free exercise rights.

Caples v. Marmor · filed 2021-06-15

Because defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we affirm.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Montelongo v. City of Modesto · filed 2021-06-15

Officer Wallace is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because, as established previously, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Wallace violated Mr. Montelongo’s clearly established constitutional right.

A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Silvas v. Hinajosa · filed 2021-06-17

Government officials performing discretionary duties can respond to § 1983 claims by asserting qualified immunity. ... Thus, Brown is entitled to qualified immunity as well as summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's excessive force claim.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff’s supported account shows they violated clearly established constitutional law.

Pullen v. Officer Santiago · filed 2021-06-17

To overcome the defense of qualified immunity, Pullen must show that the officers: (1) violated federal law (2) that was clearly established at the relevant time. ... Pullen has also demonstrated, for purposes of summary judgment, that the officers violated clearly established law.

Paramedics sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that they ignored a detainee’s serious medical needs in violation of clearly established law.

Kelson v. Clark · filed 2021-06-17

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Clark and Cox’s motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity is AFFIRMED.

Qualified immunity protects officials from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to adequately allege a constitutional violation.

International Security, LLC v. Berry · filed 2021-06-17

Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a government official unless the unlawfulness of the official’s conduct was clearly established when it occurred.

O. v. Ft Bend Indep Sch Dist · filed 2021-06-17

To defeat a claim of qualified immunity, the illegality of the conduct must be “clearly established” at the time it took place.

Section 1983 officers have qualified immunity from false arrest claims when reasonable officers could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Gonzalez v. Hahl · filed 2021-06-21

Liability for the state torts also gives rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, so to the extent Gonzalez seeks to allege both, the analysis is identical. ... We need not here decide whether Gonzalez’s arrest was supported by probable cause because even if it was not, we conclude that arguable probable cause supported qualified immunity and, therefore, the award of summary judgment to Hahl.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful-arrest claim when arguable probable cause supported the arrest.

MILLER v. PERRY · filed 2021-06-21

Because probable cause arguably justified both arrests, Officer Perry is entitled to qualified immunity, and Miller's and Fisher's claims for unlawful arrest fail as a matter of law.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts could establish objectively unreasonable force.

Debisschop v. Longmeadow, Town of · filed 2021-06-21

Consequently, a fact finder could determine that the use of force by Defendants was objectively unreasonable and, therefore, they are not entitled to qualified immunity or summary judgment on Count II, Plaintiff's § 1983 excessive force claim.

An official sued under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when a warrant application is supported by arguable probable cause.

Ross v. James · filed 2021-06-22

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that James and Nix are entitled to qualified immunity from Ross’s § 1983 suit.

Qualified immunity is unavailable to an official sued only in an official capacity under Section 1983.

Deroche v. Hancock County, Mississippi · filed 2021-06-22

Sheriff Adam’s request for qualified immunity is denied because Deroche has clarified that she is only suing him in his official capacity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

G.J., a minor v. Dean, Nathan · filed 2021-06-23

However, the court must recognize, as the parties did, that such a claim is not yet clearly established. Plaintiffs offered no response to this portion of defendants’ motion, and as such, the court agrees that defendant Dean is entitled to qualified immunity on G.J.’s loss of society claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated a constitutional right.

Brisco v. Texas · filed 2021-06-23

Therefore, as in Hathaway and Sanchez, plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show a constitutional violation occurred. Accordingly, the Court finds Beauchamp is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Gold v. Joyce · filed 2021-06-24

Because Gold has sufficiently alleged that a constitutional violation occurred and that the constitutional right was clearly established, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture.

Qualified immunity protects defendants from § 1983 claims based on rights that were not established at the time of the alleged conduct.

Mora-Contreras v. Colette Peters · filed 2021-06-24

The district court properly found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment compelled speech and retaliation claims. ... But those rights were not established in any circuit at the time of the alleged incidents, and still are not established in our circuit.

An excessive force allegation based solely on an unlawful arrest is subsumed in the § 1983 unlawful arrest claim and fails when the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

Zelda Ware v. City of Atlanta · filed 2021-06-24

Thus, it is clear that her excessive force allegation was based on the illegality of her arrest, and it therefore was “subsumed” in the false arrest claim itself and was not a separate, “discrete excessive force claim.” Jackson, 206 F.3d at 1171. Accordingly, the district court properly determined that, because Officer Fall was entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, Ware’s excessive force allegation necessarily failed.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from § 1983 liability when the officer reasonably relies on a dispatcher’s confirmation of an arrest warrant.

Jones v. Sczur · filed 2021-06-25

Deputy Szczur is protected from suit in this case by qualified immunity. It is regrettable that Jones was mistakenly arrested, but the law protects police officers who make reasonable mistakes.

In a § 1983 suit, a district court must explain its ruling on qualified immunity sufficiently to permit appellate review.

Mat S. Baysa v. Redinger · filed 2021-06-25

Although Redinger asks us to reach the merits of his qualified-immunity defense, we decline to do so because the district court failed to address this important issue in the first instance.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from personal liability under Section 1983 for a traffic stop when the officer had at least arguable probable cause.

Lavoy Steed v. Missouri State Highway Patrol · filed 2021-06-25

Even assuming he misinterpreted the speed reading, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because he had at least arguable probable cause to believe the Explorer was speeding.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated clearly established law.

Priest v. Grazier · filed 2021-06-25

The record demonstrates that Grazier and Fenwick did not violate clearly established law. And by failing to produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, Priest did not meet his burden of showing that qualified immunity is inapplicable. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment in favor of Grazier and Fenwick.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the court finds no constitutional violation.

Grant v. Wilson · filed 2021-06-25

Because the Court finds no violation of a constitutional right, it is therefore unnecessary to proceed past the first step of the qualified immunity analysis. ... Accordingly, Detective Frederick is protected by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity defeats a Section 1983 excessive force claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Beard v. Town of Topsail Beach,et al · filed 2021-06-25

In sum, plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against defendant Allen for excessive force fails on the basis of qualified immunity. Therefore, this claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.

In a Section 1983 suit, an officer is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when a genuine dispute of material fact remains about whether the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Dawn Hughey v. Easlick · filed 2021-06-28

Easlick is not entitled to summary judgment because Hughey has created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Easlick violated her clearly established constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Government defendants sued in their individual capacities under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity.

Dalton v. Town of Silver City · filed 2021-06-28

Even when discriminating intentionally and without a rational basis, government defendants sued under § 1983 in their individual capacities may assert a qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 does not impose damages liability on an official whose conduct would not have been understood by a reasonable official to violate a clearly established right.

Swartz v. Sylvester · filed 2021-06-28

Accordingly, Sylvester is also entitled to qualified immunity on that basis, and therefore, to summary judgment on Count One.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false-arrest claim when they had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Frederick v. City of New York · filed 2021-06-28

Because probable cause (at least) arguably existed from that point forward, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the events following Plaintiff’s refusal to produce identification documents — including the formal arrest itself.

Section 1983 permits an excessive force claim against an officer who uses significant force on a person who is passively resisting arrest; qualified immunity does not shield that conduct.

Williams v. Milne · filed 2021-06-29

Given that Plaintiff’s version of events plausibly suggests he was only passively resisting the attempts to handcuff him and that Defendant nonetheless punched Plaintiff at least eight times and deployed a Taser against him, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful-arrest claim when they had at least arguable probable cause to arrest.

Garang v. City of Ames · filed 2021-06-30

Accordingly, in the absence of a constitutional violation, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

In a § 1983 suit, a court must thoroughly analyze an officer’s claim of qualified immunity before denying it.

Watson v. Eddie Boyd, III · filed 2021-06-30

We pass no judgment on whether Officer Boyd is entitled to qualified immunity because the district court failed to undertake the necessary analysis. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand the case for a more detailed consideration and explanation of the validity, or not, of Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity in a manner consistent with this opinion, and we dismiss the City’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against a prison official when the plaintiff cannot show that the official violated clearly established law.

BODDIE v. SALDANA · filed 2021-06-30

Without a case directly on point, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Saldana acted contrary to clearly-established law, thus entitling Defendant Saldana to the defense of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against supervisors when the plaintiff fails to show how their own conduct was unconstitutional.

RIGHTSELL v. INDIANA STATE POLICE · filed 2021-06-30

Qualified immunity, however, bars the claims from advancing: the Estate has not explained how Lt. McKee and Sgt. Gritten's conduct was unconstitutional.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when existing law did not give them fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Wilson v. Gregory · filed 2021-07-01

Under governing precedent, they are entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, we need not reach the issue of whether any conduct by the Deputies violated Mr. Huelsman’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 judicial deception or deliberate fabrication claim when disputed evidence could establish conduct that violated clearly established rights.

Gerald Len Cooley, Jr. v. Jeha · filed 2021-07-01

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their objectively reasonable conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Johnson v. Stephan · filed 2021-07-01

Thus, the magistrate judge concluded Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... However, having reviewed the remainder of the Report and found no clear error, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusions and recommendation in the Report (ECF No. 83) that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the officer violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Wheat v. Officer J. Day · filed 2021-07-02

Construing the facts in favor of Wheat, we find that Day is not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

STEELY v. CLEMONS · filed 2021-07-02

Accordingly, in light of those disputed facts, Clemons cannot prevail as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage on his claim of qualified immunity.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless seizure of private property when no warrant exception applies and the right was clearly established.

Hopkins v. Nichols · filed 2021-07-02

Accordingly, Detective Nichols and Sheriff Lamb are not entitled to qualified immunity insofar as it concerns the seizure of the Hopkins’ cattle.

Qualified immunity shields a prison official from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law would not have told every reasonable officer that the conduct was unlawful.

Amos v. Jefferson · filed 2021-07-06

Accordingly, qualified immunity shields Jefferson from suit.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff establishes a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Hamberlin v. Arizona, State of · filed 2021-07-06

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims, and the Court agrees.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action turns on whether the officer violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time.

Clemons v. Couch · filed 2021-07-07

We reverse and remand for further proceedings. ... “We analyze whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity using two steps: (1) whether the defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a clearly established right.

Kettmann v. City Of San Jose · filed 2021-07-07

Because Kettmann did not meet his burden of showing a violation of a “clearly established” right, the Court grants summary judgment as to the defense of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a § 1983 claim if they search a home without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.

LaRoche v. Chapman · filed 2021-07-07

Defendants would therefore not be entitled to qualified immunity if they did, in fact, perform a warrantless search in the later hours of January 24, 2018 or early hours of January 25, 2018. Because an issue of fact exists as to whether Defendants obtained a search warrant prior to their search of Plaintiffs’ residence, Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment must be DENIED.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when factual disputes remain about whether officers violated a clearly established right.

Daugherty v. Doe · filed 2021-07-07

The inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the use of excessive force is distinct from the inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim. ... To the contrary, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is guaranteed under the Eighth Amendment. As such, questions of fact remain making summary judgment inappropriate at this time.

In a Section 1983 suit, qualified immunity warrants summary judgment when the plaintiff cannot show that the officials violated a constitutional right.

Snyder v. Bergeron · filed 2021-07-07

Therefore, the first prong of the qualified immunity test has not been met, and that alone warrants the granting of the motion for summary judgment.

A § 1983 excessive force claim survives dismissal on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Spicer v. Michigan, State of · filed 2021-07-07

In all, Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded an excessive force claim, and the Court will not dismiss the § 1983 claim against Trooper Carroll under the qualified immunity defense.

A social worker was qualifiedly immune from a Section 1983 claim for executing the child removal order in this case.

Corso v. Hamilton County, Ohio · filed 2021-07-07

The Court concludes, however, that qualified immunity covers Swing’s actions for her execution of the order.

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when the law did not clearly prohibit the official’s conduct in the particular circumstances.

Marks v. Inslee · filed 2021-07-08

Although the law is clearly established that prisoners retain First Amendment protections with respect to the free exercise of religion, O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 348, there is no clearly established precedent on the appropriate constitutional response to a novel pandemic, during which prisons and prisons officials were and continue to be tasked with balancing the prisoner’s First Amendment rights with the need to protect individuals in custody from exposure to COVID-19. ... Accordingly, Defendant Uttecht is entitled to qualified immunity.

Individual defendants may assert qualified immunity against § 1983 claims, and identifying that defense gives fair notice.

Mollica v. County of Sacramento · filed 2021-07-08

This defense gives adequate notice of the individual defendants’ intent to argue they are entitled to qualified immunity against claims under § 1983, a commonly litigated and well-understood affirmative defense.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 liability when their arrest violates no clearly established law.

Dowling v. Starr · filed 2021-07-08

I find that qualified immunity protects the officers: the undisputed facts show that the officers violated no clearly established law when they arrested Dowling and that they reasonably believed that a crime (willful violation of a court order) was taking place in their presence, which is generally sufficient to create probable cause.

An officer may invoke qualified immunity against a Section 1983 excessive-force claim unless the officer’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Cooper v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-07-09

The Court here considers both prongs, concluding that while Pantaleon cannot prevail, Phillip did not participate in conduct that violates any clearly established right.

Officers sued under Section 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Denby v. Engstrom · filed 2021-07-09

Plaintiffs brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. ... The district court correctly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the unreasonable search claims on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim when a genuine factual dispute remains over consent to a blood draw.

Mendoza v. National City, City of · filed 2021-07-09

A triable issue of fact therefore remains as to whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, with regard to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims, is DENIED.

Qualified immunity protected the officer from this § 1983 excessive-force claim.

Magwood v. Fowler · filed 2021-07-09

Defendant Fowler is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 excessive force claim.

Section 1983 municipal liability claims are not automatically barred when individual officers receive qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established.

Quintana v. City and County of Denver · filed 2021-07-12

However, under Tenth Circuit precedent, a Monell claim is not automatically subject to dismissal upon a determination that the law is not clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity.

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

DEAN v. BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO · filed 2021-07-12

Because the video could support various outcomes, a jury must decide which version to believe. ... As such, and according to Curley, the Defendants’ motion seeking a determination that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force and failure to intervene claims pursuant to the NJCRA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be denied without prejudice.

In a Section 1983 action, a factual dispute over whether an officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Wilkins v. Horton · filed 2021-07-13

Here, as discussed in the previous objection, because questions of fact remain as to whether Horton violated Wilkins’s constitutional rights, these questions “must be reserved for trial.”

A § 1983 plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and a clearly established right to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity defense.

Salway v. Norris · filed 2021-07-14

In order for Plaintiff to overcome the defense of qualified immunity on this claim, he must show (1) that on the facts alleged Defendant violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) that the right was clearly established, beyond debate, at the time of the alleged unlawful activity. As to Plaintiff’s unreasonable seizure claim, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim at summary judgment when the inmate’s evidence shows the official knew of specific gang threats and took no protective action.

(PC) King v. Biter · filed 2021-07-14

With this in mind and having properly construed the disputed evidence as demonstrating “that Defendant Biter had actual knowledge of repeated threats of violence by Bloods gang members on Plaintiff, and took no action to prevent Plaintiff from being housed with a Bloods member” (id. at 13), the magistrate judge properly concluded that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment in his favor on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity when the complaint fails to allege conduct that violated a clearly established federal right.

Dallas v. Missouri Department of Family Services · filed 2021-07-15

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support that Defendants Parsons and Smith violated a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time of the acts at issue, all claims against Defendants Governor Mike Parsons and Karen Smith are dismissed due to official immunity.

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

Whyte v. Centre County Correctional Facility · filed 2021-07-15

Defendants, therefore, are entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s claim that her rights were violated when she was strip searched by officers of the opposite gender from which she identifies.

Officials sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established right.

Brooks v. Harris County Jail · filed 2021-07-16

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability in their individual capacities to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. ... The officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is granted, and the claims against them are dismissed.

A plaintiff cannot overcome qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim by relying on a decision issued after the officer’s alleged misconduct.

Pizarro-Ramos v. Souza · filed 2021-07-16

Consequently, decisions issued after the events in dispute occurred cannot clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not shield university officials from damages through qualified immunity when their conduct violates clearly established First Amendment rights.

Fellows v. University of Iowa · filed 2021-07-16

The University and individual defendants turned a blind eye to decades of First Amendment jurisprudence or they proceeded full speed ahead knowing they were violating the law. Either way, qualified immunity provides no safe haven.

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

DeLaney v. Perez · filed 2021-07-16

The individual Defendants’ actions are protected by qualified immunity because Plaintiff’s due process right was not defined with reasonable clarity.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts could establish a violation of clearly established rights.

Hart v. Artus · filed 2021-07-16

However, the Court finds that “drawing every factual inference in favor of the plaintiffs,” Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity.

A state employee sued individually for damages under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the employee’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

Dowell v. Oliver · filed 2021-07-19

Plaintiff asserted deliberate indifference claims against each Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. ... The Court will therefore grant qualified immunity to Nurse Smith because there was no constitutional violation, and the Court will grant summary judgment to Dr. Oliver and PA Buskirk.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law made the officer’s use of force objectively unreasonable.

Williams v. Canche · filed 2021-07-20

Canche is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court denies his motion for summary judgment.

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable official would not have known the conduct violated clearly established law.

MCQUAY v. LITTLEJOHN · filed 2021-07-20

Warden Brown is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. McQuay's claim.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of constitutional rights.

Nelson v. Precythe · filed 2021-07-20

Plaintiff has failed to present a violation of any constitutional rights, and therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Cephas v. Booker · filed 2021-07-21

Because Cephas fails to allege facts stating a prima facie case of deliberate indifference by the defendants, he has not presented the elements necessary to state a violation of a constitutional right against them; therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity against his § 1983 claims.

A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim overcomes qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage by alleging a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Williams v. Borrego · filed 2021-07-21

Because Mr. Williams has adequately alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, he has overcome qualified immunity. So we affirm the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Barefield v. Hillman · filed 2021-07-21

Because Barefield failed to allege a viable claim under the state-created-danger doctrine, Hillman and Normant are entitled to qualified immunity.

At the pleading stage, defendants seeking qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim must show that they are entitled to it on the face of the complaint.

Hamilton v. Earl · filed 2021-07-21

To prevail at this stage of the proceedings, defendants must show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint.

In a Section 1983 suit, disputed facts about an officer’s use of force can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Cornelius v. City of Mount Washington, Kentucky · filed 2021-07-21

Depending on whose story is accepted, Defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, both Cornelius’ and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied with respect to the issue of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can entitle defendants to summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim.

Edwards v. Nurse's Supervisor · filed 2021-07-21

On June 6, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending inter alia that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted because Plaintiff has not shown a constitutional deprivation and the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (DE 68) and incorporates it herein.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit must be assessed separately for each officer based on that officer’s alleged conduct, when individual assessment is possible.

Mondragon v. City of Fremont · filed 2021-07-22

We vacate and remand to the district court for a proper individualized qualified immunity analysis, to the extent each Defendant’s alleged conduct can be individually assessed under Mondragon’s version of the facts material to that Defendant.

An officer sued personally under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct did not violate a constitutional right.

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD v. THE CITY OF VINELAND · filed 2021-07-22

As such, as a matter of law Defendant did not violate Bard’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and judgment in his favor on Plaintiffs’ claims against him.

Qualified immunity may be denied at the pleading stage of a § 1983 claim when deciding whether the officers acted reasonably requires further factual development.

GIDDENS v. CURRENTLY UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED SEPTA POLICE OFFICERS · filed 2021-07-22

Thus, I will decline to grant qualified immunity at this stage of the case.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on a failure-to-protect claim when a jury could find they knew of a specific threat to an inmate and clearly established law required them to respond.

Smith v. De-Los-Santos · filed 2021-07-26

On Smith’s telling of the facts, he explicitly informed both correctional officers of a specific threat to him from a specific person. ... Thus, the Defendants have not shown that they are qualifiedly immune from liability for failure to protect.

Municipalities cannot claim qualified immunity from damages in a Section 1983 action.

Slabey v. Dunn County, Wisconsin · filed 2021-07-27

Thus, to the extent the circuit court concluded the County was entitled to qualified immunity, we agree with Slabey and the amicus Wisconsin Association for Justice that such a determination was in error. However, because there was insufficient evidence to create a triable issue regarding the County’s liability for Slabey’s assault under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court’s error does not undermine the validity of the court’s grant of summary judgment.

Officers sued under Section 1983 may receive qualified immunity from damages when their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Prim v. Deputy Stein · filed 2021-07-27

The officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the district ... court granted the motion. We agree that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts bear on both the force used and the immunity defense.

Baker v. City of New York · filed 2021-07-28

There are genuine issues of material fact regarding, among other things, the reasonableness of Defendants’ use of force and the degree of injury suffered by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ conduct. Because these “disputes overlap both the excessive force and qualified immunity issues, summary judgment must be denied.”

In a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must identify case law clearly establishing the right at issue.

Hope v. Glover · filed 2021-07-29

To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of directing the Court to case law establishing the right.28 The body of case law cited by the plaintiff should put the alleged unlawfulness of the conduct “beyond debate.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017). Because Ms Hope failed to respond to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that the County Defendants filed on January 20, 2021, she has failed to carry her burden on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

A guard who uses pepper spray on a docile, restrained inmate is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim.

Lavall Lee v. James · filed 2021-07-29

Alternatively, James contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the law is unclear whether a single burst of pepper spray can be excessive. It is not: No reasonable guard would think using such force on a docile and restrained inmate was justified.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities when the plaintiff raises no genuine issue of material fact on an alleged constitutional violation.

Ingram v. Sharpe · filed 2021-07-29

Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded as follows: ... (3) that because “Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on any of his allegations of constitutional violations,” Defendants “are also shielded from liability by qualified immunity in their individual capacities,” id. at 12. ... After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth above, the court finds no clear error in the Report and agrees with the magistrate judge that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 81), which is incorporated herein, and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

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

Bifelt v. State of Alaska · filed 2021-07-30

Vent’s right to be free from lethal force at the time the fatal shooting occurred was not clearly established. ... However, under our precedent, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are protected by qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Kavianpour, MD v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia · filed 2021-08-02

Along with affirming that there was a “special need” for the testing, the Court also found that Defendants Arnold and Norton are protected by qualified immunity because Plaintiff’s drug testing was not clearly unlawful.

Qualified immunity bars liability under Section 1983 when the defendants did not violate a clearly established right, even if a jury could find a constitutional violation.

ROBINSON v. AYORINDE · filed 2021-08-02

Even if a jury could reasonably resolve the merits of the First Amendment claim in Mr. Robinson's favor, qualified immunity would still preclude any liability for the defendants.

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

Nichols v. Gamewell · filed 2021-08-02

Because Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient evidence that Defendants’ conduct violated any constitutional right, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

MUCY v. NAGY · filed 2021-08-03

Because the right to be free from reckless investigation was not established at the time of the events at issue, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim.

An officer who ignores a detainee’s obvious need for medical aid is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when that right was clearly established.

Burwell v. City of Lansing, Mich. · filed 2021-08-04

Because summary judgment was improper as to Kelley, we must also address the issue of qualified immunity. ... Therefore, it was clearly established at the time of Phillips’s detention that declining to render aid to an unconscious detainee lying in a pool of vomit constitutes a constitutional violation.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for excessive force lacks qualified immunity when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Martinez v. Dart · filed 2021-08-04

For the reasons given above, on those facts Kulasa violated Martinez’s Fourth Amendment rights. And on those facts, Kulasa is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity from retaliatory arrest claims when probable cause or arguable probable cause supports the arrest.

Just v. Kuykendall · filed 2021-08-05

Because we have already concluded that the Officers had probable cause, or at least arguable probable cause, to arrest Just and because such a finding defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, see Quraishi, 986 F.3d at 836; Thurairajah, 925 F.3d at 985, we find that qualified immunity was also appropriate on Just’s First Amendment claim and the district court erred by denying that immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield correctional officers from a § 1983 claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could show that they knowingly ignored a prisoner’s serious medical need.

Wilson v. Stewart · filed 2021-08-05

Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, Johnson and Mason are not entitled to qualified immunity on Wilson’s § 1983 deliberate indifference claim, and their motions for summary judgment on Wilson’s § 1983 claims are denied.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim when it was objectively reasonable to rely on a fellow officer’s directive to arrest based on an investigating officer’s report of probable cause.

MILLS v. NELSON · filed 2021-08-05

In this matter it was objectively reasonable for Nelson to believe probable cause existed for plaintiff’s arrest based on Devine’s directive that they were to arrest plaintiff. ... Nelson is shielded from liability for plaintiff’s arrest by qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when no clearly established law makes their conduct unlawful.

Beitch v. Magnus · filed 2021-08-06

The district court properly granted summary judgment for officers Miller and Hyde on Beitch’s excessive force claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether the officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable.

Jennings v. Decker · filed 2021-08-06

Thus, due to the factual disputes present on the record concerning the level of force used by Defendants, Plaintiff’s level of resistance, and whether Plaintiff presented an objectively reasonable threat to the officers, the Court will not grant Defendants qualified immunity.

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 retaliation and conspiracy claims when the plaintiff fails to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to a constitutional violation.

Villasana v. Newman · filed 2021-08-08

As plaintiff has failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to a constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s claims for both retaliation and conspiracy.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

ABC Sand and Rock Company Incorporated v. Maricopa, County of · filed 2021-08-09

In this case, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because ABC has not shown violation of a constitutional right.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for gratuitously striking a restrained inmate when the unlawfulness of that conduct was clearly established.

Jacobs v. Cumberland County · filed 2021-08-10

At the time of the relevant conduct, it was clearly established that officers could not gratuitously beat an inmate. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jacobs, any reasonable officer would have known that the conduct here was unlawful. We will therefore affirm both the District Court order denying summary judgment and the District Court order denying reconsideration to Officer Williams.

Entity defendants in a § 1983 action are not entitled to qualified immunity from discovery.

Mcknight v. Arapahoe County, Colorado · filed 2021-08-10

And although they seek dismissal of the claims, the entity defendants are not entitled to the protections afforded by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity applies to individual-capacity claims for monetary damages under Section 1983 but does not protect municipalities from liability.

Sexton v. City of Colorado Springs, Colorado · filed 2021-08-10

Indeed, qualified immunity is applicable only to individual capacity claims for monetary damages; it does not shelter municipalities from § 1983 liability.

Individual school officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity unless the complaint plausibly shows that they violated a clearly established right.

Bryant v. Dayton Independent School District · filed 2021-08-11

Qualified immunity applies to the § 1983 claims against the individual defendants, and they are dismissed, with prejudice, because further amendment would be futile.

Qualified immunity does not shield prison medical officials from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law gives them fair warning that their delayed, plainly unresponsive care violates an inmate’s rights.

Spikes v. McVea · filed 2021-08-11

In light of these precedents, Defendants had “fair warning” that their delay in treating Spikes’s fractured hip beyond the most cursory care violated his Eight Amendment rights.

Employees of a private corporation providing medical care in a correctional facility cannot assert qualified immunity against a § 1983 claim.

Bond v. Regalado · filed 2021-08-11

In Tanner v. McMurray, 989 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2021), the Tenth Circuit unambiguously held that employees of a national private corporation providing medical services in a correctional institution cannot assert qualified immunity. ... Whitman worked for Armor, a private corporation, rather than the county. Accordingly, Tanner applies. Whitman is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for an officer whose conduct did not violate clearly established law under the circumstances.

BURDSALL v. WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-08-11

Under prevailing Supreme Court precedent, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” ... While the conduct of Officer Cesanek can be second guessed, Plaintiff is unable to muster any judicial precedent where, on this or a similar set of facts (i.e. an officer making a questionable finding of probable cause without willful deception), a court declined to apply qualified immunity. Therefore, despite whatever concerns the conduct in this case might raise, this Court is compelled to grant summary judgment.

An officer sued under § 1983 may be denied qualified immunity at summary judgment when material facts about the plaintiff’s resistance and the officer’s use of force remain disputed.

Flowers v. City of Springfield · filed 2021-08-12

Because of these genuine issues of material fact pertaining to whether Flowers resisted and concerning the nature of the takedown, Renfro is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

An officer is not entitled to dismissal of a Section 1983 false arrest claim on qualified immunity grounds when the pleaded facts do not establish arguable probable cause.

Minfee v. City of New York · filed 2021-08-12

Detective Soberal is not entitled to dismissal of the false-arrest claim based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 action bars claims for monetary damages but does not bar claims for injunctive relief.

Shelley, 1589035 v. Stirling · filed 2021-08-12

Additionally, qualified immunity only bars claims for monetary damages, not claims for injunctive relief. ... After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action may be denied summary judgment on qualified immunity when a material fact underlying the defense remains disputed.

(PC) Alem v. CDCR · filed 2021-08-13

The court therefore declines to grant summary judgment for defendant Curry on the ground of qualified immunity as presented in his motion for summary judgment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the officer reasonably perceives a threat of serious harm.

Downing v. Petry · filed 2021-08-13

In summary, Petry reasonably feared for his life and the lives of his fellow officers in the moments immediately preceding his use of deadly force against Downing. He is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Downing’s excessive force claim under § 1983.

An officer receives qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim for prolonging an investigative detention when the detention remains justified while the officer waits for backup to complete the stop’s purpose.

Pollreis v. Marzolf · filed 2021-08-16

We also conclude that Officer Marzolf should receive qualified immunity on the prolonged-investigative-detention claim.

Section 1983 claims against officials in their individual capacities are barred by qualified immunity when their alleged conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Collins v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 2021-08-16

Thus, the Court finds that the constitutional claims against Defendants in their individual capacity are barred by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison official from a Section 1983 retaliation claim when a reasonable official would have known that repeatedly calling a prisoner a rat within earshot of other inmates could create constitutional liability.

O'Neal 203912 v. Johnson · filed 2021-08-16

A reasonable prison official would have been aware that calling a prisoner a rat multiple times loud enough for other inmates to hear in retaliation for the inmate’s exercising his First Amendment rights could give rise to constitutional liability.

Officials facing Section 1983 damages claims are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violated no constitutional right.

United Steel, Paper and Forest v. Anderson · filed 2021-08-17

Because we have found no First Amendment violation arising from Castilleja’s firing, Anderson and Brady necessarily merit qualified immunity on this claim.