42 U.S.C. § 1983

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for a warrantless home entry when the facts show no exigent circumstances and the entry violated clearly established law.

Williams v. Maurer · filed 2021-08-17

And if the jury finds that there was no exigent circumstance, then, as in Barton, Defendants’ warrantless entry into Plaintiffs’ home violated clearly established law. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ unlawful entry claim.

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

MOUNTAIN v. DOZIER · filed 2021-08-17

Of course, the plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege the violation of a constitutional right means the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from damages under Section 1983 when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established in the circumstances.

Bradley v. Rochester Police Department · filed 2021-08-17

In this case, the Court concludes that Bongiovanni is entitled to qualified immunity because Bradley’s right to be free from excessive force in this context was not clearly established.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when a jury could find that a prison official ignored a medical directive in violation of a clearly established right.

Mack v. Wexford Health Sources · filed 2021-08-18

Further, it is clearly established from pre-existing law that ignoring directives of medical professionals may violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. ... Accordingly, Defendant Love is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officers who allegedly observed an inmate during childbirth without a security justification can survive a motion to dismiss despite a qualified immunity defense.

BROWN v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY · filed 2021-08-18

Those inferences suggest that Deputies Haskell, Dickey, and Brady placed themselves in a position to observe the Plaintiff’s naked body during the course of her twenty hours of labor and without any readily apparent penological justification or exigent circumstances. ... Thus, I conclude that dismissal of the § 1983 claims against them is not warranted.

State officials sued for damages under Section 1983 have qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Stuart v. Scottsdale, City of · filed 2021-08-19

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state officials are liable for civil damages only insofar as they tread on “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

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

Morgan v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2021-08-19

For the reasons discussed above, the Court will dismiss with prejudice all remaining federal claims against Defendants, who are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when their use of force is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Jones v. City of Danville · filed 2021-08-20

This is a clear case for the application of qualified immunity.

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

Wilson v. Lorts · filed 2021-08-20

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

In a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff opposing summary judgment on qualified immunity must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.

McWilliams v. Dinapoli · filed 2021-08-20

“When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established. The court may consider either of these prongs before the other ‘in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.’”

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.

Randall v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University and A&M College, Louisiana High School Athletics Associati · filed 2021-08-23

we find that qualified immunity applies.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim at the pleading stage when the complaint does not establish arguable probable cause.

Bey v. Antoine · filed 2021-08-23

Thus, Plaintiff’s “head[ing] to the front door,” away from the children the officers were removing, did not provide either probable cause or even an arguably “objectively reasonable” basis for Rocke “to believe that [Plaintiff] was intending to obstruct” the officers in the performance of their government function.

Employees of large private firms organized to provide prison medical services for profit cannot assert qualified immunity against Section 1983 claims.

Davis v. Munger · filed 2021-08-24

Because this court has found no firmly rooted history of immunity, and the purposes of qualified immunity, on balance, do not favor extending immunity, these medical defendants, as employees of large firms “systematically organized to perform a major administrative task for profit,” are not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for an officer who had arguable probable cause to make an arrest.

Rivera v. Trinh · filed 2021-08-24

At a minimum, the undisputed facts recounted above gave Officer Trinh “arguable probable cause” to arrest Mr. Rivera, and thus also warrant summary judgment under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim when clearly established law would not lead every reasonable officer to conclude that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Lilly v. Town of Lewiston · filed 2021-08-24

In other words, because the undisputed facts establish reasonable suspicion for the encounter and the circumstances surrounding it, as explained above, Stafford is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

McLaughlin v. Sullivan County Board of Education · filed 2021-08-24

Considering Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights and such rights were clearly established at the time of the suspension, Director Cox’s qualified immunity defense is denied.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from § 1983 liability when the circumstances would not have made the constitutional violation clear to every reasonable officer.

Duncan Smith, Jr. v. Vasquez · filed 2021-08-25

Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the circumstances were not such that every reasonable officer would have understood that he or she was violating a constitutional right. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that Vasquez was entitled to qualified immunity on Smith’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 shields an officer through qualified immunity when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Taylor v. City of Saginaw, Mich. · filed 2021-08-25

But because we conclude that the alleged unconstitutionality of suspicionless tire chalking was not clearly established, the City’s parking officer, defendant Tabitha Hoskins, is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when a disputed fact about resistance controls whether the officers violated a clearly established right.

Fizer v. City of Warren · filed 2021-08-25

Since there is a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue, the Court cannot grant summary judgment on the basis of the qualified immunity defense.

Officials sued under Section 1983 in their individual capacities are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges purposeful racial discrimination.

Miller v. Buckner · filed 2021-08-25

Because the Court views the allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint as true for the purposes of ruling on the instant Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that State Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the claims in Count IV of Miller’s Complaint.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that clearly established law put them on notice that their conduct violated his rights.

Luchetti v. The New Mexico State Personnel Board · filed 2021-08-25

In sum, the Court finds that because Luchetti fails to cite authority that clearly establishes the Individual Defendants’ conduct, as described in the Second Amended Complaint, violated his constitutional or statutory rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A police forensic examiner is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for withholding exculpatory information when the duty to disclose it to prosecutors was clearly established.

Horn Jackson v. Stephenson · filed 2021-08-26

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Stephenson is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the facts appearing on the face of the complaints.

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

Mitchell v. Lt. Smith · filed 2021-08-26

Based on Al-Amin’s statements of law, any reasonable official at the time of these events would have known that opening Mitchell’s legal mail outside of his presence was unconstitutional. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Simpson, Perkins, and Clark at this stage of litigation.

A Section 1983 excessive force claim may proceed when an officer’s alleged use of deadly force violated a clearly established right, defeating qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Bradley v. Officer Casey Benton · filed 2021-08-26

Regarding the main issue in this case—Officer Benton allegedly tasing Robinson on top of the wall, causing him to fall, break his neck, and die—we affirm the district court’s denial of Officer Benton’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and remand so that the plaintiffs’ claims against Officer Benton relating to the tasing may proceed to trial.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the evidence does not show that the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Decina v. Horry County Police Department · filed 2021-08-26

Accordingly, as Decina has not forecasted any new evidence showing that Berry violated Decina’s fourth amendment rights, the Court finds that evidence when viewed in the light most favorable to Decina shows that Berry performed the discretionary functions of his respective official duties in an objectively reasonable fashion, and thus is entitle to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Walker v. Fayette County Schools · filed 2021-08-26

And here, the jury must weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations to decide whether Defendant violated Q.W.’s constitutional rights. The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, factual disputes that prevent a court from resolving qualified immunity also prevent summary judgment on that defense.

Newman v. Officer Marfo · filed 2021-08-27

This factual dispute prevents the court from concluding that Reid is, or is not, entitled to qualified immunity. The motion for summary judgment is denied.

Section 1983 does not allow a damages claim against an official protected by qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Midwest Crane and Rigging v. KCC · filed 2021-08-27

For the same reason Midwest Crane couldn't show a lack of probable cause to support its malicious-prosecution claim, it can't show a clearly established right to support its section 1983 claim.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law gave them fair warning that their alleged conduct was unlawful.

Meagher v. Prioleau · filed 2021-08-27

Clearly established authority need not have “identical or even ‘materially similar’ facts”; it need only have provided defendants fair warning that their conduct (as alleged by Meagher) was unlawful.

In a § 1983 excessive-force claim, disputed facts about the officers’ conduct can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Reed v. Dzurenda · filed 2021-08-27

But the polar-opposite versions of the fight make it impossible for me to resolve the immunity question on summary judgment.

Section 1983 permits a qualified immunity defense to an excessive force claim, but disputed facts about whether the officer’s force was warranted can preclude summary judgment on that defense.

Caldwell v. Officer German Geronimo · filed 2021-08-27

As discussed above, the Court concludes that a reasonable factfinder could find that Plaintiff did not pose a threat to Defendant and did not understand, at the time he attempted to walk past Defendant, that he was not free to leave, and that Defendant’s aggressive action to restrain Plaintiff was clearly unwarranted. Consequently, the Court declines to grant Defendant summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer at summary judgment when the evidence could show that he searched a suspected parolee’s home without checking available papers showing the occupant was not on parole.

STOKES v. BENNEFIELD · filed 2021-08-30

Based on the foregoing binding precedent, the Court cannot find that Benefield acted reasonably in, or that he was unaware of the potential unconstitutionality of, searching a suspected parolee’s house without, at a minimum, checking the parolee’s purported release papers which the parolee was prepared to show. Thus, qualified immunity is not appropriate.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against an official when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Spencer 189009 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-08-31

As the Magistrate Judge correctly indicated, where Plaintiff did not satisfy this prong of the qualified-immunity analysis, “it is unnecessary to determine whether Sanford’s rejection violated Spencer’s First Amendment rights” (id.).

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the defendant violated no constitutional right.

Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2021-08-31

Because the Court grants summary judgment to UMMC on both due process claims, there is no constitutional right violated by any of the Defendants. The Court therefore grants the Defendants’ summary judgment on their claims of qualified immunity.

Prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim at summary judgment when the evidence could show they ignored a known risk of sexual assault and their duty to protect the inmate was clearly established.

Lane v. Kimbrell · filed 2021-08-31

Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

A public official sued under Section 1983 cannot claim qualified immunity when established law clearly protects the speech for which the official allegedly retaliated.

DeCrane v. Eckart · filed 2021-09-01

To hold Eckart liable under § 1983, DeCrane needed to establish two things. ... He next needed to overcome Eckart’s qualified-immunity defense by showing that Eckart’s conduct violated clearly established law. ... Eckart is mistaken because our cases at the relevant time had already set more specific ground rules to distinguish public from private speech.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 medical-care suit turns in part on whether the detainee’s right to medical attention was clearly established.

Colson v. City of Alcoa, Tenn. · filed 2021-09-01

We affirm the district court’s determination that Colson’s right to medical attention was clearly established and dismiss the rest of England’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff proves a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Vernon Dahl, III v. Kilgore · filed 2021-09-02

Kilgore is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless Dahl can prove that Kilgore violated a clearly established constitutional right. ... Therefore, the district court correctly rejected Kilgore’s arguments for qualified immunity against Dahl’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity shields an official from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not adequately allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Newell v. Central Mich. Univ. Bd. of Trs. · filed 2021-09-02

That did not conform to the proper analysis, which asks if (1) Newell adequately alleged a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when, on the plaintiff’s facts, the officer shot someone who no longer posed a threat in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Holloway v. Bartman Horn · filed 2021-09-02

Appellants are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim.

An officer sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the arrest does not violate clearly established law.

Monterroso v. City of San Diego · filed 2021-09-02

Regardless of whether Officer Purdy had probable cause to arrest Monterroso, the arrest did not violate clearly established law.

A Section 1983 damages claim against officials cannot overcome qualified immunity without a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Brantley County Development Partners, LLC v. Brantley County, Georgia · filed 2021-09-02

Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking damages for a taking without just compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 67-69. However, as discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional violation for such a claim and, thus, fails to overcome qualified immunity.

Under § 1983, a factual dispute about an officer’s use of force can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Dodson v. Reed · filed 2021-09-02

The same fact dispute that defeats Eastwood’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim —i.e., the conflicting testimony about the distance between Eastwood and Dodson—also precludes summary judgment on her qualified immunity claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim for a stop without reasonable suspicion when that requirement was clearly established.

Sweet v. Reese · filed 2021-09-02

Because there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial stop and Deputy Reese violated Sweet’s clearly established constitutional rights, he is not entitled to qualified immunity in regard to the initial stop.

Section 1983 allows qualified immunity for an official sued in an individual capacity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Insco v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2021-09-07

The Court stands by its analysis and reasoning in its prior order and determines here that, in light of medical developments and the lack of legal authority establishing the unlawfulness of Hissom’s course of action in this case, Hissom would not have been on notice of a “clearly established” right of Plaintiff to be treated by DAA drugs. Accordingly, Hissom—like Moore—is entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s deliberate intent claim.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Godfrey v. Easton · filed 2021-09-07

As such, Gutreuter and Harris are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An individual defendant in a § 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Toney (ID 71755) v. Harrod · filed 2021-09-07

Thus, the law was not clearly established that Quidichay could be held liable for violating Toney’s free exercise rights by acting without a discriminatory purpose. Therefore, Quidichay is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim when unresolved facts prevent the court from determining whether the defendants knowingly violated the law.

Hamilton v. Mead · filed 2021-09-07

The doctrine of qualified immunity does not bar plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim because, as explained above, there are unaddressed issues of fact with respect to events that took place before Hamilton was found hanging from the ceiling grate.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when no reasonably competent officer could find probable cause based on the facts known at the time of arrest.

Moore v. Keller · filed 2021-09-07

The remaining question is whether qualified immunity nevertheless defeats Jalia’s § 1983 claim. ... Because “no reasonably competent officer” in Officer Keller’s position could have concluded, based on the facts known to him at the time, that probable cause existed to arrest Jalia, he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.

Orr v. Deputy James Rogers · filed 2021-09-08

In short, Orr failed to establish that the Deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity because he did not set forth any constitutional violation that was “clearly established.”

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

Perez v. Collier · filed 2021-09-08

Because the defendants were on notice at the time of the incident that their conduct violated clearly established law, they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

A plaintiff cannot overcome qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action without establishing a violation of a constitutional right.

Landers v. Adelstein · filed 2021-09-08

His assertions that Adelstein was not entitled to qualified immunity fail as he cannot establish the denial of a constitutional right.

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

Benner v. Wolf · filed 2021-09-09

Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity from the damages claims Plaintiffs bring under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. ... Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ federal damages claims, which are dismissed.

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

Turner v. Connecticut Lottery Corp · filed 2021-09-10

Therefore, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that Ms. Turner has alleged sufficient facts to preclude a finding of qualified immunity as to Mr. Smith.

Officials sued individually under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff offers no facts supporting a constitutional violation.

Taylor v. Aiken County School District · filed 2021-09-10

Because the court has determined that Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts to support a constitutional violation occurred, the court finds Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims.

Government officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Mancia v. Elam · filed 2021-09-13

Therefore, the defendants in this case are entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity against Morales Mancia’s claims for monetary damages for alleged due process violations during the disciplinary proceedings.

An official acting within discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

B.T. v. Battle · filed 2021-09-13

There is no dispute that Battle was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he arrested and restrained B.T. The burden therefore shifted to B.T. to show: (1) Battle violated his constitutional rights, and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Section 1983 does not give prison officers qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the allegations show they exposed an inmate to a substantial risk of harm in violation of a clearly established right.

DeLong v. Carrillo · filed 2021-09-13

Because Eighth Amendment protection from deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety is an established constitutional right, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 828, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint adequately alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Van Allen v. Lawson · filed 2021-09-13

And Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to defeat the defense of qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Section 1983 permits a supervisory liability claim to proceed when factual disputes remain over whether the supervisor knew of a substantial risk of harm and failed to respond.

Dean v. Bearden · filed 2021-09-13

However, as discussed above, Plaintiff has identified evidence which indicates that Defendant Precythe’s failure to respond and wait for her staff to act amounted to turning a “blind eye” in the face of a substantial risk of harm. Ripson, 20 F.3d at 89. Defendant Precythe is thus not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage unless the defendants’ entitlement to it appears on the face of the complaint.

Doe v. Helen Hayes Hospital · filed 2021-09-13

The Court cannot conclude from the four-corners of the Second Amended Complaint and on the motion papers before it that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at this early pleading stage.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when a material factual dispute prevents the court from deciding whether the officer’s use of force violated clearly established law.

Dodson v. Reed · filed 2021-09-13

As previously noted, law enforcement 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.” Wesby, supra., 138 S.Ct. at 589. The same fact dispute that defeats Eastwood’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim —i.e., the conflicting testimony about the distance between Eastwood and Dodson—also precludes summary judgment on her qualified immunity claim. Accordingly, Eastwood’s qualified immunity motion is denied.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged facts show they violated a clearly established right.

Barnes v. Green · filed 2021-09-14

At the time of the incident on January 9, 2020, it was clearly established that slamming an unresisting pretrial detainee to the ground violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Thompson, 350 F.3d at 735 (constitutional violation established where officers beat inmate who was not resisting or making a disturbance). Accordingly, McKee is not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 for an unlawful search may receive qualified immunity when he reasonably relies on another officer’s assessment of probable cause.

Brookins v. Laureano · filed 2021-09-15

Plaintiff has offered no argument that Amato had reason to know that Laureano’s assessment of probable cause was mistaken, and thus no basis to argue that Amato was not entitled to rely on Laureano’s judgment. Amato is therefore entitled to summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.

Once a defendant raises qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendant is not entitled to it.

Tomas-Pedro v. Holden · filed 2021-09-15

Once the defendant has raised the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that the defendant is not entitled to such immunity.

Section 1983 permits claims against state officials for constitutional violations, and disputed material facts can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Capps v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice · filed 2021-09-16

Section 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a vehicle for a claim against a person acting “under color of state law,” such as a prison official, for a constitutional violation. ... Additionally, genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. ... Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds will be denied.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Wade v. Lewis · filed 2021-09-17

Taking all these important factual distinctions together, we have no difficulty concluding that it would not have been clear to an objectively reasonable officer in Captain Lewis’s situation that his conduct violated clearly established law.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a Section 1983 claim when, on the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts, a reasonable officer would not believe the conduct was reasonable.

Holmes v. Officer George Hernandez · filed 2021-09-17

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Hernandez did not act reasonably, nor would a reasonable officer believe that he had acted reasonably, which means qualified immunity does not apply, either.

A § 1983 plaintiff opposing qualified immunity bears the burden of showing a violation of a clearly established right.

STONE v. COUCH · filed 2021-09-17

It is Mr. Stone's burden to demonstrate a violation of a clearly established right.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Whalen v. Morice · filed 2021-09-17

However, assuming Detective Caillouet provided the information to Morice, Detective Caillouet is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Brock v. The City of Ord, Nebraska · filed 2021-09-17

Therefore, Petska and Sikyta are not entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint, and the defendants' motion to dismiss Brock's § 1983 claim will be denied as to all defendants.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when genuine disputes of material fact remain.

Farghaly v. The City of New York · filed 2021-09-17

Finally, I decline to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it is subject to the same “genuine, material, factual disputes” as the excessive force claim.

Section 1983 does not allow summary judgment on qualified immunity for a false arrest claim when disputed facts prevent a finding of arguable probable cause as a matter of law.

Buckley v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2021-09-17

Here, Defendants have not demonstrated that summary judgment is warranted on the question of qualified immunity in the context of Buckley’s false arrest claim because, for the reasons stated above, they have not demonstrated as a matter of law that there was arguable probable cause to arrest Buckley.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law would have alerted them that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Thomas v. Clear · filed 2021-09-20

In sum, Thomas has not pointed the court to any controlling precedent which would have alerted defendants that they were violating Thomas’s First or Fourteenth Amendment rights, and defendants are unaware of any such clearly established law. As such, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Manning v. C.J. Ryan · filed 2021-09-20

After reviewing the law, we have determined that our case law up to now has not necessarily made clear that the MCJ officials violated Manning’s constitutional rights by enforcing the blanket prohibition on visitation with minor children, and so qualified immunity was appropriate to protect the defendants from liability.

Section 1983 does not give jail deputies qualified immunity from an overdetention claim when clearly established law warned them to investigate evidence that they held the wrong person.

Sosa v. Martin County, Florida · filed 2021-09-20

Because Cannon made it clear that an officer’s “failure to take any steps to identify” a detainee as the target of warrant is unconstitutional, Deputy Sanchez and the other deputies at the jail are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity defeats an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the officer’s conduct violates no constitutional or statutory right.

Kokesh v. Curlee · filed 2021-09-21

Kokesh’s claim therefore fails on the first inquiry of qualified immunity: his constitutional and statutory rights were not violated by Curlee’s request for identification or the arrest for failure to comply under LA. R.S. 14:108(B)(1)(c).

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the governing constitutional standard was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Harrison v. Kernan · filed 2021-09-21

To recapitulate, because the now-applicable intermediate scrutiny standard for evaluating Plaintiff's equal protection challenge to the property regulations at issue was not clearly established at the time that Defendants promulgated and enacted those regulations in 2008, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it would be unfair to hold their conduct accountable to a standard that would not be announced until a dozen years after the time they promulgated regulations that, when enacted, satisfied the then-applicable Turner standard.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 claim against an individual official.

Bruce v. Kelly · filed 2021-09-21

The court grants defendants’ request to dismiss Count IV—plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Superintendent Jones for violating plaintiff’s First Amendment free speech rights— because qualified immunity bars this claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when disputed facts about the suspect’s movements determine whether the officer faced a threat.

Phillips v. Hinds · filed 2021-09-21

Hinds cannot simply declare that he “perceived a furtive movement” and receive qualified immunity.

School officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference to known student-on-student sexual harassment and the right was clearly established.

Lameda v. Independent School District No 29 of Cleveland County Oklahoma · filed 2021-09-21

Applying this rule to the alleged facts of this case, the Court finds that the individual defendants are not entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against them based on the defense of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 qualified immunity shields an individual board member from damages on a liberty-interest claim when it was not clearly established that the member could be treated as the plaintiff’s employer.

Flanagan v. Scearce · filed 2021-09-22

Accordingly, although the court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Scearce was acting as Flanagan’s employer for purposes of a liberty-interest claim, it was not clearly established at the time of Flanagan’s termination that Scearce, as a lone board member, would be deemed as such and therefore held liable under § 1983.

A § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming qualified immunity only after defendants adequately present the defense.

Halik v. Darbyshire · filed 2021-09-22

Thus, while defendants are correct that the burden to overcome qualified immunity is entirely plaintiff’s, that burden only arises when the doctrine has been “adequately presented.”

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have understood that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Kestenberg v. Dwyer · filed 2021-09-22

The defendants would enjoy qualified immunity in any event because no officer in their position would have clearly understood their actions to be improper.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 false arrest claim at summary judgment when, on the plaintiff’s account, no reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed.

Messino v. City of Elmhurst · filed 2021-09-23

No reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff based upon Plaintiff’s version of the facts. Accordingly, the qualified immunity doctrine does not entitle Krueger to summary judgment.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

CASH v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY SHERIFF OFF. · filed 2021-09-24

Thus, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, Deputy Bobak is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against him.

Qualified immunity does not protect Section 1983 defendants who deny a prisoner a clearly established due process right to examine documentary evidence for a disciplinary hearing.

Melnik v. Dzurenda · filed 2021-09-27

We conclude that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because Melnik had a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be permitted to examine documentary evidence for use in the prison disciplinary hearing.

Section 1983 does not impose liability for psychological bullying when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

N.P. v. Kenton County Public Schools · filed 2021-09-27

In Section II.B., the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ § 1983 substantive due process claim because the Sixth Circuit has not established whether “psychological bullying can suffice to shock the conscience[,]” and therefore any violation was not clearly established precluding the Defendants from being held liable.

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

Endicott v. Hurley · filed 2021-09-27

Under Parrish and Bagby, Baker and David Cutt have qualified immunity from this claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law.

Pollard v. Desoto County · filed 2021-09-27

The court finds that the defendant officers’ actions in briefly entering the home were objectively reasonable. They are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim, and the claim should be dismissed.

Section 1983 equal protection claims against school officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

M.B. v. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION · filed 2021-09-27

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for IIED, and while Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support his equal protection claims arising under § 1983, those claims against Defendants Carnahan and Clary are barred by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts bear on whether an official’s warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

Perkowski v. The Town of Brookhaven · filed 2021-09-27

Regarding Defendant Incagliato, given the disputed facts whether exigent circumstances existed so that he and the Town could conduct a search of the Premises, the Court finds summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not warranted under these circumstances.

Section 1983 malicious abuse of process claims against government attorneys are barred by qualified immunity when the law governing issuance of the challenged process was unsettled.

Baron v. Lissade · filed 2021-09-27

Because of the uncertain status of the law, the Commission attorneys are entitled to qualified immunity against a malicious abuse of process claim based on their issuance of a probable cause finding.

Officers may receive qualified immunity from § 1983 false arrest and unlawful search claims when an erroneous stolen-vehicle alert gives them arguable probable cause.

Pierre v. City of New York · filed 2021-09-28

Because the NYSPIN alert stated that Pierre’s car was stolen, albeit erroneously, there was at least “arguable” probable cause for Defendants to arrest Pierre. The same reasoning supports the District Court’s finding that, under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, Defendants had probable cause to search Pierre’s vehicle. See United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 456 (2d Cir. 2004). Therefore, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on both claims.

Qualified immunity does not shield a Section 1983 defendant when, taking the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts, the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Ballou v. McElvain · filed 2021-09-28

We must affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity if, resolving all factual disputes and drawing all inferences in Ballou’s favor, McElvain’s conduct (1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of the violation.

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

Depaul Industries v. Miller · filed 2021-09-28

But because this interest was not clearly established law at the time of Miller’s alleged violation, the district court erred by denying Miller qualified immunity on DePaul’s due process claims.

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

Jensen v. Deputy Allen · filed 2021-09-28

Although the Court finds the search did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches, summary judgment is also appropriate because Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity even if the search was unreasonable.

Under § 1983, a prosecutor’s review of a misleading arrest-warrant affidavit does not by itself entitle officers to qualified immunity.

Wheeler v. Kidder · filed 2021-09-29

As a result, we hold that the district court did not err in denying the officers’ second motion for summary judgment and rejecting their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably relied on Prosecutor McCoy’s advice in crafting a misleading arrest-warrant affidavit.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges gratuitous force against a restrained detainee.

Brown v. Fluellen · filed 2021-09-29

As in Skrtich, Fluellen allegedly imposed gratuitous force on Brown while Brown was already subdued or incapacitated. If true, this is a violation of clearly established law.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless they violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Eason v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-09-29

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 actions unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) their conduct violated clearly established law at the time.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects a school official from a retaliation claim when the alleged violation was not clearly established in the specific circumstances.

FALMOUTH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT v. MR AND MRS DOE · filed 2021-09-29

Thus, the Court concludes that Kucinkas is entitled to qualified immunity on Count IV and this claim is alternatively subject to dismissal on that basis.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that their use of force was unlawful under the circumstances.

Freistat v. NYPD · filed 2021-09-29

At minimum, defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity with respect to allegations that they used excessive force to subdue plaintiff before he was handcuffed.

A police officer may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment.

Scism v. City of Schenectady · filed 2021-09-29

After carefully considering the record, the Court: (1) grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 95) with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against the City and against Kent on qualified immunity grounds and denies the motion (id.) with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against Ferris; (2) denies Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 102) as moot; (3) denies Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 118) as moot; (4) denies Defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. No. 91) with respect to the audio/visual files but grants it with respect to personal information related to the confidential informant; and (5) denies Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 107) except as it relates to personal information of the police officers or the confidential informant.

Qualified immunity does not justify dismissing a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not establish the officers’ entitlement to immunity.

VINOSKY v. CONSIGLIO · filed 2021-09-29

Accordingly, at this early stage of the litigation, qualified immunity is not established on the face of the amended complaint (ECF No. 86) with regard to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Chief Berg, Chief Estep and Officer Fochler.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when his conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Thompson v. Harris County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-09-30

Bruno’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him. Bruno is entitled to qualified immunity, and plaintiffs claims against him for use of excessive force are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, premised on qualified immunity.

Officials are qualifiedly immune from personal-capacity § 1983 damages for a disciplinary loss of telephone privileges when controlling precedent has not established a protected liberty interest in those privileges.

Riddick v. Franklin · filed 2021-09-30

Qualified immunity “shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 118 (4th Cir. 2013). ... Accordingly, even if the penalties that Riddick received for his disciplinary convictions implicated protected liberty interests, the defendants in this case are entitled to qualified immunity against Riddick’s claims for monetary damages.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could show a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Bygum v. The City of Montgomery · filed 2021-09-30

Accordingly, in view of the genuine dispute as to the material facts respecting the shooting of Young, the court finds that Officer King is not at this juncture entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful arrest claim when their mistaken belief in probable cause is objectively reasonable.

Ulysse v. Stokes · filed 2021-09-30

Even assuming that Stokes and Al-Hinawi were mistaken in their assessment that probable cause existed to arrest Ulysse, the undisputed material facts demonstrate that their belief was objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. That objectively reasonable mistake (assuming one occurred—a fact that has not been established) entitles both Officers to qualified immunity from Ulysse’s § 1983 claim for an unlawful seizure without probable cause.

A child welfare worker acting within her discretionary authority has qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the plaintiffs fail to show a violation of clearly established rights.

Crider v. Williams · filed 2021-09-30

For the foregoing reasons, Williams is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged conduct did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established at the time.

Monk v. Flowers · filed 2021-09-30

For these reasons, Senator Flowers is entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Monk’s claims pursuant to § 1983 for violations of the First Amendment.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against officials who could reasonably believe their conduct complied with the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Luther v. Hunt · filed 2021-09-30

In any event, qualified immunity would attach and dismiss any claim seeking monetary relief.

An officer acting within discretionary authority is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint fails to allege a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Gomez v. Hoo · filed 2021-09-30

Given Plaintiff’s failure to allege a violation of his First or Fourth Amendment rights, he is unable to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity and the Court need not address the second prong of the relevant inquiry.

An official invoking qualified immunity against a Section 1983 claim must first show that the challenged conduct was within his discretionary authority.

Palmer v. Robbins · filed 2021-09-30

To rely upon qualified immunity, a defendant first must show that he acted within his discretionary authority. ... Here, the record is replete with evidence that Lieutenant McBride was performing a legitimate job function through permissible means when he investigated the gasoline theft at Herty.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts could show that an officer violated a clearly established right.

Jones v. Davis · filed 2021-09-30

Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that Officer Gonzales is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s failure to intervene claim.

Qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim may be denied at summary judgment when the officer is not entitled to it at that stage.

Azurdia v. City of New York · filed 2021-09-30

Nor is Officer Germain entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when an officer’s fatal seizure of a pet could violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

Aljoe v. Adams · filed 2021-09-30

Scott does not contest the R&R’s finding that qualified immunity does not provide a basis for summary judgment here, and the Court agrees with the R&R in that regard.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

STOCK v. BRASWELL · filed 2021-09-30

Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is meritorious, it also fails on the grounds that Agent Braswell is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff alleges that an officer’s dog bit him after he complied with commands and the facts remain disputed.

Almond v. Butler · filed 2021-09-30

Thus, the deprivation, as alleged, was of a clearly established right. ... Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate at this time, and for the reasons stated above, Defendant Butler’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when their unconstitutional conduct violates clearly established law.

French v. Merrill · filed 2021-10-01

We reverse on Count IX, relating to the September incident, because the unconstitutional conduct of the officers violated the clearly established law of the Supreme Court as set forth in Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 6 (2013).

Section 1983 claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Cain v. Rinehart · filed 2021-10-01

Rinehart is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the Unlawful Entry Claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 false arrest claim when factual disputes remain about probable cause and the officers’ objective reasonableness.

Ducksworth v. City of Laurel, Mississippi · filed 2021-10-01

To the extent Defendants argue that they are protected by qualified immunity, the Court finds that 1) the right to be free from false arrest without probable cause is clearly established, see, e.g. Adelman v. Branch, 784 F. App’x 261, 265-66 (5th Cir. 2019); 2) for all the reasons provided above, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff; and 3) for all the reasons provided above, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against state officials in their individual capacities unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Rolfes v. Davis · filed 2021-10-04

The doctrine of qualified immunity bars § 1983 suits for money damages against state officials in their individual capacities unless the Plaintiff can establish that Defendant (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged events.

Qualified immunity can bar § 1983 claims against prison officials implementing court-ordered suicide prevention checks.

(PC) Wilson v. Beard · filed 2021-10-05

The court lifts the stay in the four cases reviewed above and dismisses each plaintiff’s action against defendants on qualified immunity grounds given the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims against prison officials for implementing the Guard One suicide prevention checks in these cases.

(PC) Rico v. Beard · filed 2021-10-05

The court lifts the stay in the four cases reviewed above and dismisses each plaintiff’s action against defendants on qualified immunity grounds given the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Qualified immunity can bar § 1983 claims against prison officials for Guard One suicide prevention checks.

(PC) Matthews v. Holland · filed 2021-10-05

The court lifts the stay in the four cases reviewed above and dismisses each plaintiff’s action against defendants on qualified immunity grounds given the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Section 1983 claims against prison officials may be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds under controlling appellate precedent.

(PC)Suarez v. Beard · filed 2021-10-05

The court lifts the stay in the four cases reviewed above and dismisses each plaintiff’s action against defendants on qualified immunity grounds given the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

A plaintiff pursuing a Section 1983 claim bears the ultimate burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply, including that the asserted right was clearly established.

McDougald v. Clagg · filed 2021-10-05

As noted above, plaintiffs pursuing § 1983 claims bear the ultimate burden on the qualified immunity issue generally, and also the specific burden of showing that the rights at issue are clearly established.

A government official sued individually under Section 1983 may invoke qualified immunity when the conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Douglas v. Dixon · filed 2021-10-06

Additionally, and in the alternative, PO Dixon is entitled to qualified immunity because her conduct did not violate “clearly established” law.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that they violated a clearly established right.

Matzell v. Annucci · filed 2021-10-07

Matzell has plausibly alleged that DOCCS’ refusal to enroll him in Shock violated clearly established law. Accordingly, defendants’ bid for qualified immunity must be rejected.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a § 1983 unlawful-detention claim when the detainee’s mere proximity to a suspected offender supplies no arguable probable cause.

Andrew Joseph, Jr. v. Chronister · filed 2021-10-12

We agree with the district court that the law was clearly es- tablished in February of 2014 that mere proximity to one who is suspected of (or has committed) an offense does not provide prob- able cause or arguable probable cause for a detention.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Damon S. Bonneau, Jr. v. Cuellar · filed 2021-10-13

Because Defendant had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on both incidents, Defendant did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court grants summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim.

A prison nurse is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable nurse would have understood her conduct to be lawful.

Xavier v. Tanori · filed 2021-10-13

Here, based on the approval of Defendant Ferrari’s supervising nurse as well as the provision in the DOM allowing for the access to decontamination from running water and fresh moving air, the Court finds that it was clear to any reasonable nurse that Defendant Ferrari’s conduct was lawful. As there are no triable issues as to whether Defendant Ferrari entitled to qualified immunity, Ferrari is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s medical claims on this independent basis as well.

Qualified immunity does not shield a Section 1983 defendant when the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.

Roncales v. McDowell · filed 2021-10-14

Because Roncales’s right to a pre-termination hearing was clearly established at the time of his actions, Fire Chief McDowell is not entitled to qualified immunity on Roncales’s due process claim.

In a Section 1983 suit, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation or that the right was clearly established.

Silva v. Read · filed 2021-10-14

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not carried his burden on either prong of the qualified immunity analysis and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when a jury could find that the officer knowingly or recklessly made material misstatements to obtain an arrest warrant in violation of clearly established law.

Hicks v. Anne Arundel County · filed 2021-10-14

Cpl. Pamer is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on Hicks’ § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not shield a deputy through qualified immunity when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, he used gratuitous force against a nonresisting person who had been told he was free to leave.

Baysa v. Gualtieri · filed 2021-10-15

Redinger’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity is denied.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 claim unless existing precedent clearly establishes that the officer’s specific conduct was unlawful.

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna · filed 2021-10-18

Even assuming that con- trolling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law for pur- poses of §1983, LaLonde did not give fair notice to Rivas- Villegas. He is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when no precedent clearly establishes that their conduct violates the Fourth Amendment in similar circumstances.

City of Tahlequah v. Bond · filed 2021-10-18

Neither the panel majority nor the respondent have identified a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances. The officers were thus entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, officials acting within their discretionary authority are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Cox v. Deputy Warden · filed 2021-10-18

Here, Cox does not dispute that the GDC officials were acting within their discretionary authority. The burden therefore shifts to Cox to show that, when we view the complaint’s allegations in her favor, “(1) the defendant[s] violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004).

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clear to every reasonable official.

Samuels v. Ahlin · filed 2021-10-19

The district court did not err by granting reconsideration and dismissing Samuels’s Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim on the basis of qualified immunity, because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that detaining Samuels in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever was endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could show he caused the unreasonable killing of a dog in violation of a clearly established right.

DeJonghe v. Dearborn Heights · filed 2021-10-20

For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Fourth Amendment claims against Defendant Kramarz. ... Here, Plaintiff had a clearly established right to not have her dog unreasonably killed. This right has been clearly established since at least 2013 when Brown was decided. ... However, for the reasons discussed supra, the Court finds there is a genuine issue as to whether Plaintiff voluntarily surrendered her dog to be euthanized.

A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the official’s conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Reid v. Phillips · filed 2021-10-21

The Court finds that Souder has met his burden to ... show that his actions did not violate a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibits denying treatment for a serious medical need solely because of an administrative policy.

Nall v. Adamson · filed 2021-10-22

Because it is clearly established that failing to treat a serious medical need based solely on an administrative policy constitutes deliberate indifference, it would not be appropriate to grant summary judgment on Defendants’ qualified immunity defense.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison officer from a Section 1983 claim when firing birdshot toward a compliant inmate violates a clearly established Eighth Amendment right.

Richards v. Cox · filed 2021-10-25

Thus, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Richards, Boardman is not entitled to qualified immunity on Richards’s Section 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when existing law did not give fair warning that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional.

Schantz v. Deloach · filed 2021-10-26

As such, and because Plaintiff fails to point to any other preexisting law that would have given Defendant fair warning of the unlawfulness of his conduct, we hold that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer who obtains an arrest warrant through reckless material omissions when clearly established law forbids that conduct.

Trail v. Cressell · filed 2021-10-26

We further conclude that, at the time of Trail’s arrest, the law clearly prohibited Cressell from “mak[ing] intentionally or recklessly false material . . . omissions in order to obtain a warrant.” ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

An officer with arguable probable cause to arrest is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim.

HARVEY v. YOCHUM · filed 2021-10-26

“Even without actual probable cause, however, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he had only ‘arguable’ probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.” ... Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest claim based upon qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not resolve a § 1983 claim when disputed facts determine whether officers faced symptoms requiring immediate medical attention.

McDougal v. Penn · filed 2021-10-27

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified to immunity because McDougal did not present with complaints serious enough to warrant immediate medical attention, but whether he did is a question of fact that a jury must consider. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

In a Section 1983 suit, qualified immunity does not support summary judgment when the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows a violation of clearly established law.

Thomas v. County of Sacramento · filed 2021-10-27

To resolve questions of qualified immunity at summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. ... Assuming that version of the facts, Russell’s actions violated clearly established law.

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

Carroll v. Norfolk Regional Center · filed 2021-10-28

In light of this Eighth Circuit precedent, the Court concludes that the restrictions here do not violate clearly established law. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, summary judgment in their favor is warranted.