42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 liability when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Carroll v. McAllister · filed 2021-10-28

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability in § 1983 actions when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim may be deferred when material factual disputes affect whether the officer violated clearly established rights.

Manifase v. Moroney · filed 2021-10-28

As explained in the previous section, there are questions of material fact that must be resolved before evaluating the rectified affidavit; whether there was probable cause, and, if not, whether any reasonable officer would have known his actions violated the plaintiff’s rights. The Court therefore defers judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when prior law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.

Baker v. Snow · filed 2021-10-29

Given this backdrop, and because the Court has been unable through its own research to identify a prior case that “developed in such a concrete and factually defined context to make it obvious to all reasonable government actors, in [Defendants’] place, that what [they are] doing violates federal law,” Shafer, 868 F.3d at 1117, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects a defendant from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a clearly established right or objectively unreasonable conduct.

Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-10-29

As such, Deputy Cole is cloaked in qualified immunity, and all of the plaintiff’s claims against him must be dismissed.

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

Haggard v. Dorsett · filed 2021-11-02

Because Dorsett at the very least had arguable probable cause to believe Chad was in constructive possession of the marijuana found in the cigarette case, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence does not establish a constitutional violation.

Potter v. Echele · filed 2021-11-02

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

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the alleged facts, if proved, would violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Alexander v. Hall · filed 2021-11-02

As the plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim under § 1983 for a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights, the Court must next determine if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. ... Because the plaintiffs have pled facts which, if proven, would amount to the violation of clearly established constitutional rights, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

An official sued in an individual capacity under Section 1983 is entitled to immunity when the official violated no clearly established constitutional right.

Royster v. Robinson · filed 2021-11-03

Because we determine that no First Amendment violation occurred, it follows that we also conclude that Defendant Magnum violated no constitutional right that was already clearly established in 2016. The district court concluded properly that Defendant Magnum is thus entitled to immunity on Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim.

Officers sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when existing precedent would not have informed a reasonable officer that their conduct was unlawful.

Finch v. Meier · filed 2021-11-03

Because Plaintiffs have pointed to no Supreme Court case or controlling Tenth Circuit precedent which would have reasonably informed these officers that their conduct was unlawful, summary judgment is warranted.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when the officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Bracey v. BETANCOURT · filed 2021-11-03

Defendant has failed to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims brought under § 1983 will be denied.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when it was not clearly established that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Shah v. University of Toledo · filed 2021-11-04

Therefore, Worth and Cooper are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for damages.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against officers when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

ROBERSON v. BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO · filed 2021-11-05

Because the evidence cannot show that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, qualified immunity defeats Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and NJCRA claims.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law gave fair notice that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional.

Brannan v. City of Mesquite Texas · filed 2021-11-05

Just as it did with respect to Officer Green, Thompson defined clearly established law in sufficient detail to give Officer Martin fair notice that her conduct was unconstitutional.

In a § 1983 claim, once an officer shows that he acted within his discretionary authority, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating qualified immunity by showing a constitutional violation.

Friedson v. Sheriff David Shoar · filed 2021-11-08

Here, it is undisputed that Deputy Wallace was acting within his discretionary authority as a law enforcement officer when he stopped Friedson and placed him in handcuffs. Friedson thus bears the burden of showing that Deputy Wallace is not entitled to qualified immunity. But he fails to meet this burden because he has not shown that he suffered a violation of a constitutional right.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when disputed facts could show they used significant force against a detainee who was not resisting or posing a threat.

Price v. McCoy · filed 2021-11-08

As explained above, the facts as Price describes them plausibly make out a violation of his constitutional rights. In addition, it is well established that it is objectively unreasonable for an officer to use significant force on an unresisting or passively resisting subject. ... Given Price’s version of the events, including that it would be unreasonable for Defendants to believe he was being noncompliant and posed a threat at the times of the alleged excessive force, the officers are not entitled to summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment in a Section 1983 action when material facts remain disputed and the relevant constitutional protections were clearly established at the time.

Hart v. Schneeweiss · filed 2021-11-08

As discussed above, there remains a genuine dispute concerning whether plaintiff posed an imminent danger to himself and others. ... However, the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the liberty interest of inmates in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs, the procedural requirements for the administration of such drugs, and the emergency exception to these requirements inferred by the Ninth Circuit were all clearly established at the time of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims. ... Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&Rs conclusion regarding qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against state actors are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Torcivia v. Suffolk County, New York · filed 2021-11-09

Because Torcivia has not shown that the State Defendants or Intern Smith violated a clearly established constitutional right by failing to discharge him for evaluation and because this factor is dispositive, no further analysis is necessary. We affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the State Defendants and Intern Smith on Torcivia’s § 1983 claim.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s particular conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Roberson v. Wynkoop · filed 2021-11-09

However, Riverside and its progeny do not clearly establish that an officer in Trooper Wynkoop’s position will be liable in particularized circumstances like these.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 seizure claim when the alleged seizure did not violate clearly established rights.

Jones v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-11-09

Even assuming he did, however, this seizure did not violate clearly established rights, so Coward is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields an official from a Section 1983 claim when the official did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Lopez-Mieres v. Cruz-Soto · filed 2021-11-09

Qualified immunity shields officials from claims brought under § 1983 unless their ... conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. ... Because there was no constitutional violation, Cruz-Soto is shielded from this claim by qualified immunity and there is no municipal liability.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when a genuine dispute exists over whether they knowingly made false statements necessary to obtain an arrest warrant.

Goldring v. Henry · filed 2021-11-12

The main issue before us is whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to Goldring’s section 1983 malicious prosecution claim. They are not.

Qualified immunity does not entitle an officer to summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when a reasonable jury could find that the officer violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Dorsey v. Sokoloff · filed 2021-11-12

Viewing the facts as the district court gave them to us, and in the light most favorable to Appellees, id., we agree with the district court’s conclusion that a reasonable jury could conclude that Sokoloff “acted in a way that, as a matter of law, violated [DeOntre’s] clearly established . . . Fourth Amendment right to freedom from excessive force,” id. at 770; see Meyers v. Balt. Cnty., 713 F.3d 723, 734 (4th Cir. 2013) (“It is an excessive and unreasonable use of force for a police officer repeatedly to administer electrical shocks with a taser on an individual who no longer is armed, has been brought to the ground, has been restrained physically by several other officers, and no longer is actively resisting arrest.”).

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

Williams v. Biter · filed 2021-11-12

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

Section 1983 damages claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

McKenzie v. Obertean · filed 2021-11-15

This combination of precedents entitle Obertean to qualified immunity from McKenzie’s claims: it was not established—much less clearly established—that McKenzie’s right to refuse medical treatment included a right not to be held in the infirmary for observation.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges he shot dogs that posed no imminent danger.

Jennifer L.M. LeMay v. Mays · filed 2021-11-15

Because the complaint plausibly alleges Mays shot Ciroc and Rocko when they posed no imminent danger to him or others, he is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

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

Kelly v. District of Columbia · filed 2021-11-15

Even adopting Plaintiff’s version of events, the Court concludes that Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his use of force violated a “clearly established” right.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not shield officers who continue using force against a restrained person who poses no threat when that prohibition was clearly established.

Lawhon v. Mayes · filed 2021-11-15

Controlling authority at the time clearly established that officers could not continue to apply force to an already-restrained person who posed no threat.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim when the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Redrick v. City of Akron, Ohio · filed 2021-11-15

But there is no clearly established law that places the unconstitutionality of utilizing deadly force against Pruiett beyond debate.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 damages claim when the facts needed to assess the defense are absent at the pleading stage.

Allen v. Cepelak · filed 2021-11-15

Moreover, in the instant matter, the defendants have not provided information about the safety and security issues relevant to denying permission for Allen to possess and wear a burgundy fez. ... Accordingly, the court is denying the motion for reconsideration.

Officials sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the claimed right was not clearly established and they reasonably believed their conduct was lawful.

Holley v. Cook · filed 2021-11-15

The Court’s research identified no Second Circuit or Supreme Court precedent that “clearly established” Holley was entitled to the procedural protections of Wolff prior to his STN score assignment based on non-conviction information for sex treatment purposes. Thus, the defendants did not violate a clearly established right, and it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that the procedures afforded to Holley for assigning his STN score based on non-conviction information did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Thus, the Court will grant the motion for summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against the defendants in their individual capacities.

In a § 1983 action, denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage does not prevent defendants from raising it again at summary judgment after discovery.

(PC) Quezada v. Akabike · filed 2021-11-16

Such denial at the pleading stage does not preclude defendants from moving for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds following the conducting of discovery in this action.

Qualified immunity does not shield a correctional officer from a Section 1983 claim when an objectively reasonable officer would have known that the alleged conduct violated clearly established law.

Hillman v. Soroye · filed 2021-11-16

Thus, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, under the law of this Circuit, an objectively reasonable correctional officer would have known that Defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law and ran afoul of the duty imposed on correctional officers by the Eighth Amendment “‘to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.’” Odom, 349 F.3d at 773 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833). Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity and his motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied.

Qualified immunity defeats a Section 1983 malicious-prosecution claim when the officer’s arrest-warrant application establishes probable cause.

Kinnemore v. Cochran · filed 2021-11-17

The district court did not err by entering summary judg- ment in favor of Detective Cochran. The detective’s warrant ap- plication established probable cause to arrest Kinnemore for USCA11 Case: 21-11360 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 Page: 12 of 12 12 Opinion of the Court 21-11360 aggravated stalking. See Wigington, 811 F.3d at 1267. Detective Cochran was entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive-force claim for tasing a person who shows no resistance or threatening behavior when the right was clearly established.

Browning v. Edmonson Cnty., Ky. · filed 2021-11-17

Accordingly, C.S. had a clearly established constitutional right not be tased under the circumstances. Jones violated that right by tasing C.S. despite observing that C.S. was not resisting and expressed no verbal or physical behavior that was hostile or threatening. On these facts, a reasonable jury could find that use of a taser was not objectively reasonable and therefore amounted to excessive force under the law. Thus, the district court properly denied qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim.

A public school official sued individually under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law did not give fair warning that the official’s conduct was unconstitutional.

Gholston v. Franklin County Board of Education · filed 2021-11-17

The Hill principal’s failure to take corrective action to reform the school’s sexual harassment and disciplinary ... 39 ... recordkeeping policies are somewhat similar to Riddle’s inaction in response to the racist slurs inflicted upon M.G., but the court cannot find that his administrative deficiencies were clearly unreasonable, unlike in Hill, such that he should be denied qualified immunity. Accordingly, Riddle’s motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.

A police officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when existing precedent would not make the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct clear to a reasonable officer in the circumstances.

Ortiz v. Hasper · filed 2021-11-17

Accordingly, the doctrine of qualified immunity applies to Officer Hasper’s action.

A city sued under § 1983 cannot assert qualified immunity.

WALKER v. GEORGIA · filed 2021-11-18

First, Walker brings claims only against the City; he has not sued Dudley. This means that qualified immunity is not a defense to Walker’s § 1983 claims and official immunity is not a defense to his state law claims.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim for gratuitously striking an arrestee who is fully secured, not resisting, and poses no safety threat.

Johnson v. City of Miami Beach · filed 2021-11-19

As explained above, at the time of Defendant Aguila’s conduct on March 24, 2017, our circuit case law clearly established that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he uses gratuitous force against an arrestee who is fully secured, not resisting arrest, and not posing a safety threat to the officer. ... Accordingly, on the record at this stage and in the light most favorable to Johnson, Defendant Aguila is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A state official is entitled to qualified immunity from an individual-capacity Section 1983 damages claim when she reasonably enforces a statute that no court has invalidated.

Kindrow v. Benson · filed 2021-11-19

Where officials such as a secretary of state “implement validly enacted state laws that no court has invalidated, their conduct typically satisfies the core inquiry—the ‘objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct’—that the immunity doctrine was designed to test.” ... Moreover, any claim against Defendant in her individual capacity fails because Defendant’s conduct is shielded by qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Wilkinson v. Maese · filed 2021-11-19

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that no clearly established right was violated by Defendant Maese’s initiation of criminal proceedings.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts do not show a constitutional violation.

Bresnahan v. City of St. Peters · filed 2021-11-22

Furthermore, because Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the facts alleged demonstrate a violation of his First Amendment rights, Defendants Struttmann and Batzel and entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims.

Police detectives are not entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims alleging fabrication of evidence or deliberate deception to secure a conviction when the alleged conduct violated clearly established due process rights.

Dennis v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2021-11-23

Based on the foregoing, we hold that Dennis has alleged under Count I(A) and Count I(B) the violation of his due process rights clearly established at the time of the detective’s conduct on which the claims are based. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of the detectives’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 false arrest claim when officers had arguable probable cause, even if their judgment later proves mistaken.

Kelly v. Village of Lemont · filed 2021-11-23

Under the circumstances, Officers Boyer and Buczyna had “arguable probable cause” to arrest Brendan for aggravated battery, and thus are shieled by qualified immunity, even though it was later confirmed that Brendan did not have the specific intent to commit aggravated battery.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when material factual disputes could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Starr v. Marion County · filed 2021-11-23

Even though Deputy Brown argues that qualified immunity entitles him to summary judgment based on Starr’s version of events alone, several material factual questions remain foreclosing judgment at this stage. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Starr, a reasonable jury could find that Deputy Brown engaged in unconstitutional excessive force against her. Moreover, case law recognizes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right at the time of the incident. Thus, for the reasons explained, the Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is denied with regard to the excessive force claim.

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

Osborn v. Meitzen · filed 2021-11-23

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendant Meitzen is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff has failed to identify a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Qualified immunity bars the § 1983 unlawful arrest claim against the deputies.

Young v. County of San Diego · filed 2021-11-29

The Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for unlawful arrest as barred by qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that he falsified an arrest warrant application in violation of clearly established law.

Brown v. Dewalt · filed 2021-11-29

Ultimately, this Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate. First, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to show that Defendant Dewalt violated a constitutional right. Second, Plaintiff’s allegations are also sufficient to show that the constitutional right was clearly established. Accordingly, to the extent Defendant Dewalt seeks qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings, the motion is DENIED.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims against officials whose conduct was objectively reasonable under clearly established law.

WOLF v. WOLF · filed 2021-11-29

Therefore, the Borough Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, which bars Mr. Wolf’s § 1983 claims against them for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit is not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when material facts remain disputed about whether the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Blomdahl v. Jones · filed 2021-11-30

Defendant Jones is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity since there remain genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Defendant Jones violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional right to minimally adequate medical care.

A Section 1983 claim against an officer can survive dismissal on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

West v. City of Minneapolis · filed 2021-11-30

Based on the allegations raised in the complaint, the court cannot conclude that Klund is entitled to qualified immunity at this early stage of the proceedings.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts could show that an officer knowingly or recklessly supplied false information to obtain an arrest warrant.

Reeves v. Meddings · filed 2021-12-01

Accordingly, this Court finds a genuine issue of material fact that precludes a finding of qualified immunity on this charge.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material facts bearing on the defense remain in dispute.

Giesler v. City of Herrin, Illinois · filed 2021-12-01

This case is a poor candidate for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because, again, the case depends on the facts, and material facts are very much in dispute.

A defendant asserting qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit is entitled to judgment if the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Evans v. Lindley · filed 2021-12-02

Qualified immunity has two prongs. The first requires us to determine “whether an official’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Id. (citing Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 2009)). The second requires us to determine “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. Answering either in the negative is enough for the official to prevail. Id. ... Because the record, construed in the light most favorable to Evans, does not create a genuine fact dispute as to whether Lindley violated a constitutional right, Lindley is entitled to summary judgment.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against officials whose conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Jones v. Herian · filed 2021-12-02

The Court concludes that Defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established law and they are therefore entitled to dismissal of the substantive-due-process claim on grounds of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Stout v. Harris · filed 2021-12-03

Qualified immunity, therefore, does not protect Harris from Stout’s Fourth and First Amendment claims.

Officials sued for damages under § 1983 have qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Davison v. Rose · filed 2021-12-03

“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.” ... Thus, Defendants have qualified immunity on the damages claims against them in their individual capacities for counts 4 and 5, and we affirm the district court.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 search claim when factual disputes could show that an officer knowingly or recklessly misled a magistrate about probable cause.

Martinez v. Wallace · filed 2021-12-06

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and ... liability for damages under § 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. ... That fact question precludes summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from § 1983 liability when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Ackerman v. State of Iowa · filed 2021-12-06

At summary judgment, qualified immunity shields such government officials from liability in a § 1983 action “unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [Ackerman], establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, such that a reasonable official would have known that his actions were unlawful.” Blazek v. City of Iowa City, 761 F.3d 920, 922–23 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). ... Because Ackerman failed to establish any constitutional violation, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual defendants.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if a reasonable officer could mistakenly believe probable cause existed.

Osborne v. Meyers · filed 2021-12-06

Based on the processes used in determining the identity of the seller as Osborne, even if probable cause did not exist, the Court finds that a reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause existed. Therefore, in the alternative, Myers would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not shield an officer at summary judgment when the evidence could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Couch v. Brooks · filed 2021-12-06

Couch has met both elements of the qualified immunity analysis. Brooks’s actions could constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the officials violated a constitutional right.

James-Bey v. N.C. Dept. of Public Safety · filed 2021-12-06

Here, because Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that Defendants violated a constitutional right, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims against them.

In a § 1983 suit, the court decides the ultimate question of qualified immunity after the jury resolves disputed material facts.

Grant v. Lockett · filed 2021-12-08

The district court did, however, abuse its discretion in submitting the ultimate question of qualified immunity to the jury.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged facts show a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Wilson v. Painter · filed 2021-12-09

Viewing the facts as the district court gave them to us, and in the light most favorable to Wilson, id., we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Wilson plausibly alleged that Painter “acted in a way that, as a matter of law, violated [Wilson’s] clearly established . . . Fourth Amendment right to freedom from excessive force,” id. at 770; see Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95, 104 (4th Cir. 2015) (denying qualified immunity “based on the simple fact that the officer took a situation where there obviously was no need for the use of any significant force and yet took an unreasonably aggressive tack that quickly escalated it”).

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when his alleged conduct did not cause a constitutional deprivation and no clearly established law imposed the asserted duty.

Brown v. the Lakes Crossing Center · filed 2021-12-09

Culpepper is entitled to qualified immunity from damages on the § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief under Section 1983.

(PC)Suarez v. Beard · filed 2021-12-09

The qualified immunity defense does not apply to plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Flores v. City of Farmington · filed 2021-12-13

Because Reyes and Pat have failed to show that the law was clearly established, we affirm the grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on this claim.

A prison official is not entitled to dismissal of a Section 1983 claim on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference and does not establish immunity on its face.

Miller-Bey v. Williams · filed 2021-12-13

At this state of the litigation, the Court finds plaintiff has adequately alleged an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and the Court cannot determine, from plaintiff’s pleadings alone, that Warden Van Loo is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 permits a claim against a child protective services worker to proceed when the alleged facts do not establish qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Kearse V. Aini · filed 2021-12-13

On the facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint, Davis is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the litigation.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when they have not violated clearly established federal law.

Howe v. Correction Enterprises · filed 2021-12-14

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that defendants did not violate any clearly established federal law. They are thus entitled to qualified immunity.

An official is immune from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation and shows that the right was clearly established when the conduct occurred.

Gordon v. Bierenga · filed 2021-12-14

Under the familiar test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from suit unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” when the event occurred.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Kabutu v. Chisholm · filed 2021-12-14

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right under the particular circumstances of this case.

Qualified immunity does not shield public school officials from personal-capacity liability under § 1983 when their alleged conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known.

L.P. v. Wake County Board of Education · filed 2021-12-15

A reasonable public school official would have known that the seclusion that L.P. was allegedly subjected to over a period of several years was a violation of that right. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to dismiss [DE 31, 42] pursuant to the defense of qualified immunity are DENIED.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges his direct participation in the constitutional violation.

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration · filed 2021-12-16

Thus, Huff is not entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts that Huff “plausibly” participated in the alleged revocation.

In a Section 1983 suit, denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage does not preserve that defense’s protection from discovery while the defendant awaits a possible summary judgment motion.

Hicks v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections · filed 2021-12-17

Therefore, contrary to Lawson’s ... assertion, the protections of qualified immunity do not remain uninterrupted from the moment it is first asserted in motion to dismiss until after it is decided upon on summary judgment.

The deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity from the alleged § 1983 warrantless-entry claims.

Quinn v. Zerkle · filed 2021-12-20

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Kanawha Deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity based on the facts alleged in the complaints.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when, viewing the record in the plaintiff’s favor, their belief that their conduct was lawful was not objectively reasonable.

Calhoun v. Borona · filed 2021-12-20

In the alternative, they argue that their belief in the lawfulness of their actions was objectively reasonable, and that they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Reviewing the record and construing it in Calhoun’s favor, we disagree.

The court denied qualified immunity at the pleading stage on a § 1983 claim involving a public employee’s testimony.

Hayes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, The · filed 2021-12-20

The court, accordingly, will deny Battle’s motion to dismiss this claim on qualified immunity grounds as well.

Section 1983 officers may invoke qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Estate of Wangsheng Leng v. City of Issaquah · filed 2021-12-21

To defeat the officers’ defense of qualified immunity, Leng’s estate must show, first, that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights and, second, that those rights were clearly established at the time the officers acted.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Collins v. Barela · filed 2021-12-21

The Amended Complaint alleges three claims for relief, all brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) false arrest [#5 at ¶¶ 48-50], (2) excessive force [id. at ¶¶ 51-53], and (3) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment [id. at ¶¶ 54-56]. ... As a result, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

A Section 1983 plaintiff must show a constitutional violation to overcome a defendant’s qualified immunity.

Torres v. Powell · filed 2021-12-21

This issue alone is fatal to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim as the burden lies with Plaintiff to first demonstrate that Defendants violated a constitutional right before the court can turn to whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. ... Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.

A factual dispute over whether officers had reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop can preclude qualified immunity on a § 1983 unlawful detention claim.

Waterworth v. City of Joliet · filed 2021-12-21

The Court finds issues of material fact in whether the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Messino violated the traffic light. As we must in summary judgment cases, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. A rational trier of fact could conclude that Messino did not commit a traffic violation. Therefore, these disputed facts also preclude granting qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars damages under § 1983 when an official could reasonably believe the policy he adopted was lawful.

Barnes v. Fedele · filed 2021-12-21

Therefore, I grant Nuttall’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 shields a public official from civil liability through qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot identify clearly established law that applies to the official’s conduct.

Ramirez v. Martin · filed 2021-12-22

In light of the requirement that clearly established law be particularized to the facts at issue and Plaintiffs failure to identify such law, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an official from liability under Section 1983 when the official did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Milton v. Belmar · filed 2021-12-23

“Qualified immunity protects a government official from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497, 501 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). ... Because there was no constitutional violation, Defendant Wolf has qualified immunity and is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Section 1983 claims against officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established.

McIntosh, Dayon v. Goff, Daniel · filed 2021-12-29

Still, plaintiff cannot proceed on his free exercise claim as currently pled because it would be barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

A plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim by asserting constitutional rights only in general terms.

Lakeisha Mills, Felicity Mitchell, Roberta Ross, Natasha Graves, Ashley Suez, Kaleen Moses, Kathy Barbay, Jennifer Gaffn · filed 2021-12-30

However, such generalized claims are insufficient to defeat summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 fabrication of evidence claim when the evidence could show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Rodarte v. Skagit County · filed 2021-12-30

Nonetheless, to the extent the Court’s prior Order was not clear on this point, the Court clarifies that it finds that Defendant Gutierrez is not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s fabrication of evidence claims.

Section 1983 shields an officer from damages through qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established under the circumstances.

Ramos v. Harris · filed 2021-12-30

The court therefore concludes that Harris is protected by qualified immunity even if a factfinder were to determine that her use of force was objectively unreasonable.

Officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable jury could find that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Yerkes v. Ohio State Highway Patrol · filed 2021-12-30

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could find from the record that the Individual Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from discrimination and retaliation based on sex or sexual orientation and were on notice that their conduct was unlawful. Therefore, the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Baker v. Clearwater County · filed 2022-01-03

Thus, both of the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims brought against them individually.

Officers sued in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Valdez-Bey v. Castalone · filed 2022-01-03

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

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated a constitutional right.

Bramble v. Wetzel · filed 2022-01-05

In the instant case, based on our foregoing analysis of Bramble’s constitutional claims, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can bar a § 1983 excessive-force claim against a correctional officer.

Hammler v. Aviles · filed 2022-01-06

Regarding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, the Magistrate Judge found that: ... Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Officials sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law gave them fair warning that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

ROBBINS v. ROBERTSON · filed 2022-01-06

Here, Defendants had been fairly warned.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a factual dispute remains over the alleged constitutional violation and the officer does not dispute that the right was clearly established.

McMurtrey v. Cleveringa · filed 2022-01-06

Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Cleveringa violated McMurtrey’s constitutional rights, and Cleveringa does not argue that those rights were not clearly established, Cleveringa is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Section 1983 qualified immunity analysis requires an individual assessment of each officer’s conduct, even when officers are grouped in the court’s discussion.

Carter v. Butler · filed 2022-01-07

Although the district court categorized the officers consistent with the manner in which Jacqueline Carter’s Section 1983 claims were pled, the record reflects that it was cognizant of and fully compliant with the bedrock legal requirements of individual actor analysis for qualified immunity purposes.

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

Shabazz v. Schofield · filed 2022-01-07

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” ... Shabazz has not satisfied his burden. Qualified immunity bars his claim.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for state officers unless their conduct violated a federal right that was clearly established at the time.

Trent Young v. Kent Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't · filed 2022-01-10

Qualified immunity protects state actors performing discretionary functions from liability under § 1983 unless 1) their conduct violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and 2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. ... We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the claims appealed.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under Section 1983 when the officer’s mistaken judgment did not violate clearly established law.

Bressi v. Pima County Board of Supervisors · filed 2022-01-10

If there was a constitutional violation, a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983, unless his actions violate clearly established law. ... Accordingly, the Court must grant the Motion for Summary Judgment for Pima County Sheriff Deputy Roher based on qualified immunity because even his arrest of the Plaintiff was without probable cause, it was the type of mistaken judgment covered by qualified immunity.

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

Kenjoh Outdoor, LLC v. Marchbanks · filed 2022-01-11

Here, Kenjoh cannot show it was clearly established that prior restraint applied to commercial speech. If anything, our precedent seems to go the other way. So the district court properly granted Nathan Fling qualified immunity.

A defendant cannot obtain qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at the pleading stage by assuming away a risk that the complaint adequately alleges the defendant knew about.

Solares v. Diaz · filed 2022-01-11

The court has concluded that plaintiff has adequately alleged that defendant Burns was sufficiently aware of the risk of placing Romero in a cell with Osuna. ... Accordingly, the court will deny defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim brought against defendant Burns on qualified immunity grounds.

Section 1983 permits a false arrest claim to proceed against officers when disputed facts could show they lacked probable cause and are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Marbury v. Karish · filed 2022-01-11

The Court does not find Defendants entitled to qualified immunity from suit on Theodore’s § 1983 false arrest claim—Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

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

Ortiz v. Hasper · filed 2022-01-12

Hasper’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force claim is therefore granted on qualified-immunity grounds.

Section 1983 false-arrest claims are subject to qualified immunity when officers reasonably believe they have probable cause to arrest.

Gerasimou v. Brenes · filed 2022-01-12

Because it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe they had probable cause to arrest Gerasimou, they are entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the evidence does not show that the official violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Diaz v. Inch · filed 2022-01-13

Construing the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts could establish an arrest without probable cause that violated clearly established law.

Sneed v. Bankhead · filed 2022-01-13

When viewing the evidence most favorably to Sneed, the Court cannot find that the officers enjoy qualified immunity on the seizure claim.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Malone v. New Mexico Corrections Department · filed 2022-01-13

As such, the Court finds that Defendants McSorley, Lucero, and Martinez are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment as to Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Seidman v. Colby · filed 2022-01-14

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that the right that the officers allegedly violated—arresting a person in the part of their driveway that constituted the curtilage—was clearly established under the relevant precedent. Summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is appropriate on this claim.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit must show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Seymour v. Perkins · filed 2022-01-18

Because the Seymours failed to address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity standard, Perkins is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a verified complaint creates a material factual dispute about the defendant’s knowledge of a risk of harm.

Aberha v. Director Nevada Dept of Corrections · filed 2022-01-20

However, the Court again finds that the allegations of Plaintiff's report of rape to Defendant, as alleged in his verified Complaint, creates a material issue of fact that renders summary judgment on Defendant's qualified immunity defense inappropriate.

An officer may have qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when arguable probable cause existed, even if actual probable cause did not.

Triolo v. Nassau County · filed 2022-01-21

Even where actual probable cause does not exist, an officer may be entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 false arrest claim if his actions were objectively reasonable or if "arguable probable cause" existed at the time of the arrest.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when a reasonable officer would not have understood the arrest or use of force to violate a clearly established right.

Tamrat v. Rhodes · filed 2022-01-21

The court has not found a constitutional violation, and even if there was a violation, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. It would not be clear to a reasonable officer that arresting an individual who had just attempted to stab someone would be a constitutional violation. Nor would it be clear to a reasonable officer that using minimal force to subdue an individual who just attempted to stab someone and was not complying with orders would be a constitutional violation.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed an arrest warrant was valid.

Garcia, Jose v. Village Of Lake Delton · filed 2022-01-24

In short, it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that G.C.’s account was not credible or that the information plaintiff claims defendants wrongly omitted from the complaint would have negated probable cause. Accordingly, they were entitled to presume that the arrest warrant issued by Commissioner Grill was valid, and they are immune from liability on plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity can bar a Section 1983 excessive-force claim against a jail officer.

Smith v. Graebner · filed 2022-01-24

We conclude Gillet was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claims.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages when the officer did not violate a constitutional right.

Williamson v. City of National City · filed 2022-01-24

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from liability for civil damages under Section 1983 “unless the officer[] violated a clearly established constitutional right.” ... Here, we conclude that ... the Officers did not violate Williamson’s Fourth Amendment rights; therefore, we have no need to address the clearly-established prong of the analysis.

Section 1983 excessive force claims may proceed against officers when disputed facts preclude qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Harris v. City of Tulare · filed 2022-01-24

Accordingly, viewing the evidence facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs defendants are not entitled to summary judgment in their favor on qualified immunity grounds.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would not have known that the challenged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Tamrat v. Marlowe · filed 2022-01-24

The court has not found a constitutional violation, and even if there was a violation, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity. ... Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Moore v. Berry · filed 2022-01-24

As a result, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to the Plaintiffs’ claims against them in their individual capacities.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 access-to-courts claim when the plaintiff offers no evidence of prejudice or actual injury caused by the defendant.

Dupard v. Lopinto · filed 2022-01-24

Because Plaintiff has not carried his burden of offering evidence that he suffered prejudice or actual injury due to Gegenheimer’s conduct, the Court finds that Gegenheimer is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against an official when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Hunter v. Snee · filed 2022-01-24

Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and thus he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that he is not liable for Plaintiffs’ 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity protects officials from a § 1983 damages claim when the plaintiff fails to allege a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Stanley v. Barone · filed 2022-01-25

The plaintiff’s complaint fares no better with respect to his purported federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Thus, in order to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity in the present case, the plaintiff was required to allege facts that would establish that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. We agree with the court that the plaintiff has failed to do so.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 discrimination claim when the complaint fails to allege facts showing that they violated the plaintiff’s right.

Tatum v. Jasper Water Works and Sewer Board Inc · filed 2022-01-25

As a result, Plaintiff failed to allege facts that show Langley, Williams, or Smith individually violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from racial discrimination. ... Count I against Langley, Williams, and Smith is due to be dismissed as each defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects individuals facing § 1983 damages claims in their individual capacities, but does not protect municipalities or bar claims for equitable relief.

Estate of Chad Alexander Burnett v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2022-01-25

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

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct.

Knudsen v. Cantrell · filed 2022-01-25

They have failed to cite clearly established law showing Whitesell’s conduct violated the First Amendment, so defendant Whitesell is entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for retaliation violating plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights (Counts I and II).

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges conduct that violated clearly established law.

Thompson v. Ragland · filed 2022-01-26

We conclude that at the time of Ragland’s letter to Thompson, the law was clearly settled that Thompson could not be disciplined for sending her email to fellow students, at least as the facts are alleged in the complaint. ... We REVERSE the district court’s dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds and REMAND for further proceedings.

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

Barnett v. Patane · filed 2022-01-26

Here, because Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that the Defendants violated a constitutional right, the Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when they have not violated a constitutional right.

MACK-TANSMORE v. JONES · filed 2022-01-26

Because Mr. Jones did not violate Mr. Mack-Tansmore’s Eighth Amendment rights, qualified immunity applies.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a reasonable officer could believe the force used was lawful under the circumstances.

Mael v. Howard · filed 2022-01-27

Here, a reasonable officer could conclude that the single-arm take-down maneuver and forcing of Mael’s arms behind her back were reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, Richard is entitled to qualified immunity as to the extraction, handcuffing, and alleged body slam.

Qualified immunity cannot be resolved at summary judgment when material facts about the alleged harm and defendants’ knowledge remain disputed.

LOVE v. BROWN · filed 2022-01-28

Defendants' qualified immunity argument relies on disputed issues of material fact—specifically, the presence of black mold in Cell 104 and Defendants' knowledge of that black mold. Accordingly, the Court cannot resolve the qualified- immunity issue at summary judgment.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when a genuine factual dispute could establish a violation of a clearly established right.

Stanton v. Elliott · filed 2022-02-01

Because there is a genuine dispute of fact here that might prove a violation of a clearly established right, there cannot be summary judgment on qualified immunity for Trooper Elliott.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the officer did not violate a clearly established right.

Douglas v. City Of New York · filed 2022-02-01

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

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when a factual dispute remains about whether officers violated a clearly established right.

Caskey v. Fenton · filed 2022-02-01

Here again, because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant Officers made false statements in their police report, a grant of qualified immunity would be improper.

A supervisor sued under § 1983 has qualified immunity unless clearly established law would have put a reasonable official in similar supervisory circumstances on notice that the conduct violated constitutional rights.

Lakey v. Taylor · filed 2022-02-01

Coley correctly argues, however, that for their supervisory liability claim against him, Plaintiffs must show that “clearly established law . . . would . . . have put a reasonable official in [Coley’s] position on notice that his supervisory conduct would” violate Lakey’s constitutional rights. ... Accordingly, pursuant to Perry, Coley is entitled to qualified immunity.

Once officers show they acted within their discretionary authority, a § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming qualified immunity.

The Estate of Antonio Devon May v. Fulton County, Georgia · filed 2022-02-03

It is undisputed that the Officer Defendants were acting within their discretionary authority, so the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs to demonstrate that the Defendants violated a constitutional right of May’s that was clearly established as of September 11, 2018.

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

Boyd, Vincent v. Heil, Chris · filed 2022-02-04

Accordingly, qualified immunity does appear to shield Reindl and Swiekatowski from liability for monetary damages with respect to Boyd’s First Amendment free speech claim related to the August 27, 2013, letter.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when they did not violate clearly established law, even if their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Paige v. Herring · filed 2022-02-04

After reviewing the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that, even if there was a constitutional violation in this case, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

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

T.R. v. Lamar County Board of Education, The · filed 2022-02-04

Since the Defendants’ actions violated a clearly established constitutional right, we conclude that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a correctional officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim for allegedly striking a restrained, nonresisting pretrial detainee.

Wilke v. Wilborn · filed 2022-02-07

The defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim for continued detention when probable cause persists, the officer may rely on a valid arrest warrant, or the officer takes no affirmative action to continue the prosecution.

Vivianne Jade Washington v. Investigator Hugh Howard · filed 2022-02-07

Washington cannot prove that Howard violated her constitutional rights for three reasons: probable cause persisted throughout her detention, Howard was entitled to rely on a facially valid and lawfully obtained warrant, and he did not take an affirmative action to continue the prosecu- tion. Because each reason entitles Howard to qualified immunity, we affirm.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against officers whose conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Nasir v. Town of Foxborough · filed 2022-02-07

Additional cases cited by the Nasirs fail to address the circumstances at issue here and, therefore, do not alter the Court’s conclusion that qualified immunity applies to the Officers as to the remaining claim.

An officer defending a § 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law did not give fair notice that the challenged conduct was unlawful.

Powell v. Snook · filed 2022-02-08

It would not be clear and obvious to any reasonable officer that a warning was required in the 17.8 seconds between when David Powell pushed his garage door button and raised his loaded pistol in Snook’s direction.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim when the arrest lacks probable cause and the right to be free from arrest was clearly established.

Wood v. Eubanks · filed 2022-02-08

Because there was no probable cause to arrest Wood for his conduct, and because Wood’s right to be free from arrest was clearly established, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a jury could find that the officer used force against a person who was not resisting arrest, in violation of clearly established law.

York v. Lewisburg, Tennessee, City of · filed 2022-02-09

Thus, summary judgment will not be granted on York’s excessive use of force claim on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 retaliation claim when the plaintiff fails to allege a clearly established right or objectively unreasonable conduct.

Ibenyenwa v. Wells · filed 2022-02-10

Accordingly, he has not alleged that he had a “clearly established” right to file his abusive grievances or complaints or that the defendants actions were an objectively unreasonable response to them. His conclusional challenge to qualified immunity presents no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

A defendant sued under § 1983 may raise qualified immunity at trial even if she did not assert it at summary judgment.

Penate v. Kaczmarek · filed 2022-02-10

Relying on this authority, the court will not address sua sponte whether Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity at this time. She remains entitled to raise the defense at trial.

Government officials sued for damages under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights.

Monroe v. Riverside Regional Jail · filed 2022-02-11

Even if Monroe’s constitutional rights have been violated, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued individually under § 1983 have qualified immunity for discretionary conduct that violates no clearly established federal law.

BWW Inc v. Brigham · filed 2022-02-11

So ServPro must show that Brigham and Thompson’s conduct violated clearly established federal law. But as shown below, even taking the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to ServPro, ServPro fails to show that Brigham and Thompson’s conduct violated any federal law, let alone a clearly established federal law.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

R.H. v. City of Redding · filed 2022-02-11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 29) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED on the ground of qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Rossi, Kinneavy, Guterding, and Leonard.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages claims against government officials when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

HOLLEMAN v. GILBERT · filed 2022-02-14

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims because their actions were not clearly unconstitutional under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity protects a public official from damages under § 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances.

Tasfay v. Ramos · filed 2022-02-14

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim must be dismissed because Defendant DiSalvo is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity.