42 U.S.C. § 1983

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material facts remain disputed as to whether an officer violated a clearly established right.

Pheap v. City of Knoxville · filed 2022-02-14

Therefore, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Officer Williams violated Mr. Pheap’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, rendering summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity improper.

Qualified immunity can support dismissal of a Section 1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Adams v. Collier · filed 2022-02-14

He also recommended that Defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(6) be granted for Adams’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and that Defendants be granted qualified immunity. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17) as the findings of this Court. ... In all other respects, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiffs failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

University professors may invoke qualified immunity against § 1983 claims when their challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Skidmore v. The Regents of the University of California · filed 2022-02-15

Because qualified immunity is available to university professors at a general level, Bracken is inapposite. ... Skidmore has identified no case clearly establishing a right which Defendants violated, and the Court has located none.

A defendant’s qualified immunity defense may be denied at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges facts showing a possible violation of a federal right.

Lumumba v. Blevins · filed 2022-02-15

As such, the defendants’ qualified immunity defense is not well taken at this stage of the litigation.

Qualified immunity does not protect officers from a Section 1983 claim when they knowingly disregard a detainee’s serious suicide risk in violation of clearly established law.

Donald E. Turner, Jr. v. Phillips · filed 2022-02-15

A jury could reasonably conclude that the officers were aware that Turner had a high risk of suicide and nonetheless kept him in a dorm where he would have dangerous items at his fingertips, despite the availability of a dorm specially designed to protect suicidal inmates. The officers here thus were not entitled to qualified immunity.

A correctional officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could show that he used gratuitous force against a restrained inmate who posed no threat.

YACKAMOVICH v. THOMAS · filed 2022-02-15

Adopting Plaintiff’s version of the facts and resolving any issue of material fact in favor of the Plaintiff, the Court will deny qualified immunity to Defendant at this point because it is clearly “established that an officer may not . . . use gratuitous force against an inmate who has been subdued.” Giles, 571 F.3d at 327.

A prison officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliation claim if clearly established law would have made it apparent that the officer’s threats violated the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.

Owens v. Fugate · filed 2022-02-16

And if Plaintiff’s version of the facts is shown to be true, any reasonable officer would have known that such threats violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when a factual dispute prevents the court from determining whether the officer used clearly prohibited force.

Oravetz v. Parr · filed 2022-02-16

As Judge Cobb essentially states in his R&R, it was clearly established at the time of the interaction that Parr could not repeatedly punch Oravetz in the head or face for no reason. (ECF No. 83 at 10.) If Parr did, he would have violated one of Oravetz’s Eighth Amendment rights. (Id.) But the Court cannot say whether he did based on the current record. See supra. Summary judgment is accordingly inappropriate—both on the merits of Oravetz’s claim and whether Parr is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive force claim at summary judgment when the evidence could show that he used clearly unlawful force against a restrained inmate.

Green v. Poorman · filed 2022-02-17

Viewing the evidence under the required deferential standard in favor of Plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could find that Plaintiff was subdued and unresisting when Poorman allegedly beat him and caused him to be sprayed with pepper spray, and any reasonable officer would have known that this conduct is unlawful. The reasonableness of Poorman’s actions will require an assessment of witness credibility at trial, and it would be premature to resolve the matter on summary judgment. Therefore, Poorman is not entitled to qualified immunity, and his motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's constitutional claim is denied.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 disability harassment claim when the plaintiff has not shown that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established at the time.

Principe v. Vill. of Melrose Park · filed 2022-02-17

Absent a showing that plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from disability harassment was “clearly established at the time the conduct occurred,” id., however, Serpico is entitled to judgment as to this claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 arrest claim when at least arguable probable cause supports the arrest.

Rothe-Kushel v. Parsons · filed 2021-05-25

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014), we agree with the district court that probable cause, or arguable probable cause, supported Rothe- Kushel’s arrest and thereby defeated his claims, ... The judgment is affirmed.

An officer entitled to qualified immunity receives judgment on claims brought under Section 1983.

Laizure v. Washington County · filed 2021-09-07

The parties agree that in light of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, the Court must enter judgment for Defendants on Laizure’s federal claims (Claims One, Two, and Three) on the ground of qualified immunity. ... In light of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate and for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 92), and enters summary judgment for Defendants on all of Laizure’s claims.

Qualified immunity does not justify dismissing a § 1983 claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that officers entered a home without a warrant or consent in violation of clearly established law.

WHITE v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO · filed 2022-02-21

Given the allegations of the current amended complaint (and in light of the facts adduced on the state public official immunity question), it is apparent that White has stated a claim that it was clearly established by March 6, 2017, that the Greensboro Defendants could not enter a private home without a proper search warrant or consent. ... Therefore, the court vacates its dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the Greensboro Defendants in their individual capacities.

Qualified immunity may be denied on a § 1983 procedural due process claim when the alleged facts support a denial of required disciplinary hearing procedures.

Sigal v. Bean · filed 2022-02-21

The Court further finds that Defendant Portillo is not entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim at this time.

Section 1983 qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material factual disputes determine whether an officer’s use of force was reasonable.

Nunez v. Village of Rockville Centre · filed 2022-02-22

Due to these material issues of fact, the Court’s analysis of Federico’s qualified immunity must await the jury’s factual determination on what actually occurred.

Qualified immunity protects officers from § 1983 liability when they reasonably believe a warrant permits the seizure at issue.

Walker v. Park County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-02-23

The qualified-immunity issue is not whether the warrant itself was overbroad, but whether it was reasonable for Deputy Cochran and Agent Priestly to conclude it was permissible to seize any horses the veterinarian recommended for seizure.

In a Section 1983 suit, disputed facts may prevent a court from resolving qualified immunity at summary judgment.

Alfredia Edwards as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Nathaniel Edwards v. Officer John Doe · filed 2022-02-23

Alternatively, the disputed facts, including the locations of Cater and Riley, prevent this Court from determining whether Edwards’ clearly established rights were violated.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from Section 1983 liability when a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful under clearly established law.

Poole v. Shreveport · filed 2022-02-23

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit and liability under section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated clearly established law.

Grice v. Younger · filed 2022-02-24

Because Grice cannot give a Supreme Court case or a consensus of other cases to show that the law in this context was clearly established, Younger will be protected by qualified immunity.

Medical professionals sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when existing law does not clearly establish that providing emergency care to a suicidal detainee against her will is unlawful.

Doe v. Syverud · filed 2022-02-24

We are persuaded that the district court correctly determined that Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. Specifically, Appellees did not violate clearly established law under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis when, in response to Doe’s emergency-custody admittance to UVMC after a suicide attempt, they administered psychotropic medications and sedatives in order to provide her basic medical care against her will.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that a right was clearly established to overcome qualified immunity; one potentially relevant decision from another circuit is insufficient.

Swanson v. Griffin · filed 2022-02-25

But a plaintiff’s identification of a single out-of-circuit case is not sufficient to satisfy the weight of authority approach.

Qualified immunity protects an official from a Section 1983 claim when the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Miller v. Acosta · filed 2022-02-25

The district court properly determined that defendant Acosta was entitled to qualified immunity on Miller’s free exercise claim because Acosta’s conduct in refusing to provide Miller with his RMA meals when Miller did not show him a Religious Diet Card did not violate clearly established law.

Material factual disputes can prevent a defendant from obtaining summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 action.

BAKER v. GOODMAN · filed 2022-02-25

The officer now moves for summary judgment, claiming that his actions were objectively reasonable and that he is entitled to qualified immunity under federal law and discretionary function immunity under state law. As the Court finds material facts in dispute, it denies summary judgment.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Doney v. Uttecht · filed 2022-02-28

Regardless of the legitimacy of this penological interest, Defendant also is entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his free exercise right was “clearly established” under the novel context presented in this case.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the plaintiff’s account shows a violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment law.

Damien Ford v. Butler · filed 2022-02-28

We also find that, crediting Ford’s version of the incident, Butler would not be entitled to qualified immunity.

A change in the legal standard for deliberate indifference does not give a defendant qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the underlying right to care for serious medical needs was clearly established.

Asgaard v. Marquette, County of · filed 2022-02-28

As the magistrate judge pointed out in the R&R, a change in the legal standard applied by the Court does not change that it is clearly established that deliberate indifference to a plaintiff’s serious medical need, including mental health care, is a violation of a constitutional right.

An officer is protected by qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if a reasonable officer could conclude that probable cause existed, even when a jury could find otherwise.

Zoellner v. Losey · filed 2022-03-01

However, as discussed above, even if a jury could reasonably find no probable cause, a reasonable officer could still conclude that there was probable cause, and therefore, Det. Losey is protected by qualified immunity.

A prison official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the prisoner’s favor, shows conduct that a reasonable official would have understood violated the prisoner’s clearly established right to protection from inmate violence.

Panah v. State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-03-01

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

A prison official cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds against a Section 1983 retaliation claim when the prisoner's right to seek relief without retaliation was clearly established.

Elkins, Jr. v. Doe 1 · filed 2022-03-01

Further, Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ alleged misconduct. ... Thus, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officials sued for damages in their individual capacities under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established right.

Bellamy (ID 53454) v. Cline · filed 2022-03-01

An official sued in his individual capacity under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless plaintiff can show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). ... Thus, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment against plaintiff’s damage claims against them in their individual capacities.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim when they had no knowledge of a specific risk to the inmate’s safety.

Watson v. Driskill · filed 2022-03-01

Applying these principles to the present record, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the uncontroverted facts establish that Defendants had no knowledge of any specific risk to Plaintiff’s safety.

Section 1983 protects a government official through qualified immunity unless that official’s own conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Robison v. Department of Insurance, Finanical Institutions and Professional Registration · filed 2022-03-01

In a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, qualified immunity protects a government official from liability unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. ... For reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants Couch, Johnson, Huff, and Crutchfield are entitled to qualified immunity.

Municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims.

Buehler v. Dear · filed 2022-03-03

The district court’s reasoning appears to have rested on the incorrect assumption that municipalities are entitled to qualified immunity. They are not.

A prison doctor may be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 medical care claim when the record does not show he would have understood that his treatment was unconstitutional.

Weeks v. Hurst · filed 2022-03-03

Weeks does not object to Judge Johnston’s conclusion that Dr. Hurst is entitled to qualified immunity. As such, the Court will review for clear error. Reviewing and finding none, Judge Johnston’s recommendation is adopted for the reasons set forth in his findings and recommendations.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 claim if the plaintiff cannot establish both a constitutional violation and a clearly established right.

Carey v. Mannella · filed 2022-03-04

Courts employ a two-part test to determine if qualified immunity applies. First, courts determine whether the facts, taken in a light most favorable to the party alleging injury, show an officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. ... Second, if a constitutional right was violated, courts must determine “whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... If a plaintiff fails to establish either prong, he has failed to carry his burden, and judgment is appropriate for the defendant.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the officer did not violate the plaintiff’s federal constitutional right.

Turner v. Madison Co. Jail · filed 2022-03-04

Because Mayberry did not violate Turner’s federal constitutional right, Mayberry is shielded by qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields an officer unless the facts show a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right.

Tennant v. Trotter · filed 2022-03-07

Therefore, Defendant Florence and Defendant Davis are not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff fails to establish that the officer seized him.

Halik v. Brown · filed 2022-03-07

Accordingly, Sergeant Brown is entitled to qualified immunity, and by extension, summary judgment on Mr. Halik’s excessive force claim.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when a clearly established principle gives them notice that their conduct is unlawful, even without a materially similar case.

MCCLAIN v. PERRY · filed 2022-03-07

The Court agrees that King and Prince’s decision to merely watch McClain sustain a heart attack for nearly an hour before providing medical care constitutes a violation of the clearly established principle enunciated in McElligott, such that no materially similar case is required to put King and Prince on notice of the unlawfulness of their conduct.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the facts needed to resolve immunity remain subject to discovery.

Canter v. Shoppert · filed 2022-03-07

Therefore, at this stage, with discovery still ongoing, it would be premature to conduct the “fact-intensive inquiry” required to resolve the qualified immunity issue, as contemplated in Taylor, see 2016 WL 3906641, at *8. Accordingly, at this time, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the officer’s conduct did not violate clearly established law.

CHASE v. CITY OF BANGOR · filed 2022-03-07

The Magistrate Judge further reasoned that even if Officer Kinney had not acted in an objectively reasonable manner, he would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity ... The Court concurs with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim when the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Fritz 525550 v. Weikum · filed 2022-03-07

Thus, there is no clearly established constitutional right under these circumstances. As such, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds as well.

A qualified immunity defense to a Section 1983 claim may be denied as premature and raised again later in the case.

Sarkadi v. Ohio Casino Control Commission · filed 2022-03-07

Furthermore, Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is premature and is denied without prejudice and may be refiled at a later stage in the proceedings.

Government officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when clearly established law gives them fair notice that their conduct violates a constitutional right.

Ballentine v. Tucker · filed 2022-03-08

A reasonable officer in Detective Tucker’s position had fair notice that the First Amendment prohibited arresting Plaintiffs for the content of their speech, notwithstanding probable cause. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting qualified immunity to Detective Tucker.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer when clearly established law would put a reasonable officer on notice that a gratuitously forceful and invasive genital search violates the Fourth Amendment.

Mwimanzi v. Wilson · filed 2022-03-08

The Court thus finds a robust consensus of persuasive authority that would have put any reasonable officer on notice that an aggressive and invasive search, involving gratuitous and painful fondling of an individual’s genitals and buttocks, violated the Fourth Amendment. ... Officer Wilson is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on this portion of the § 1983 claim against him.

An officer facing a Section 1983 claim is entitled to qualified immunity when the officer’s conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Hall v. City of Knoxville, Tennessee · filed 2022-03-08

When faced with a Section 1983 claim, even if an officer violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity shields the officer from liability so long as a reasonable official in the defendant’s position would not have understood his or her conduct to violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. ... Moreover, even if there was a constitutional violation, Investigator Sakovich did not violate any clearly established right, and he is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Alvarado v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission · filed 2022-03-09

And if the Court were to find otherwise, Plaintiff has not shown that the conduct violated a clearly established right when taken. Rhodes is entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment fails.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer from personal liability unless the officer violates a clearly established right that a reasonable officer would have known.

Williams v. City of Burlington, Iowa · filed 2022-03-09

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... If, construing the evidence most favorably to the estate, Chiprez knew Jones was unarmed, then shooting him violated a clearly established constitutional right.

In a Section 1983 action, qualified immunity can justify staying discovery while a summary judgment motion is resolved, subject to limited discovery needed to oppose the motion.

Moore v. Garnand · filed 2022-03-09

As the court observed above, “qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” ... Accordingly, a “stay of discovery is appropriate where [the case] can be resolved on summary judgment.” ... The defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of their motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity will be granted in part.

A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim must show that the asserted constitutional protection was clearly established.

Hefa v. Hanratty · filed 2022-03-10

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby MODIFIES and ADOPTS the R&R for the reasons explained below. ... Judge Creatura reasons that: ... (2) Plaintiff had not demonstrated that the dry cell watch extension was an extreme change in confinement triggering due process protections or that any such protections were clearly established as needed to defeat a qualified immunity defense; and (3) any potential § 1985 conspiracy claim would fail in the absence of a viable § 1983 claim. (Id. at 8–13.)

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 equal protection claim when the alleged racial discrimination violates a clearly established right.

Odom v. Russ · filed 2022-03-10

The Court concludes that qualified immunity is not applicable to Defendant for Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Hines v. Kaemingk · filed 2022-03-10

Here, Hines provides no cases of controlling or persuasive authority showing that § 1983 liability exists for deprivation of the right to access public records. He cannot satisfy the narrow exception under Lanier because he cites to no decisional law regarding any § 1983 cases involving this right or an applicable general constitutional rule. Thus, Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity on Hines’s First Amendment claim.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Francis v. Huff · filed 2022-03-10

Alternatively, even if Defendant Huff’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, he is entitled to qualified immunity because the right at issue was not “clearly established” on July 23, 2018.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity if a jury could find that he used deadly force against a surrendering suspect in violation of clearly established law.

Evans, Devon v. Hansen, Eric · filed 2022-03-11

Because plaintiff has submitted evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant used deadly force despite plaintiff’s obvious attempt to surrender, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

When officers invoke qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing they violated a clearly established right.

Templeton v. Jarmillo · filed 2022-03-11

Because the officers invoked a qualified immunity defense, the burden shifts to Templeton to show the officers violated his clearly established rights.

Qualified immunity bars recovery under § 1983 for an unreasonable search or seizure unless its unreasonableness was clearly established.

Manriquez v. Ames · filed 2022-03-11

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects Plaintiff from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” see U.S. Const. amend. IV, but the doctrine of qualified immunity prevents her from obtaining recompense for an unreasonable search or seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the unreasonableness of that search or seizure was clearly established, see District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018).

Public officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity for retaliation when any reasonable official would know the retaliation was unconstitutional.

Hiers v. Wright · filed 2022-03-11

Hiers has also met his burden of showing that the university officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on his retaliation claim because any reasonable university official would have known that it was unconstitutional to discontinue his employment because of his speech.

A government employee seeking qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit must show that the challenged acts were within her discretionary authority.

Gonzalez v. Duane · filed 2022-03-11

In any event, Duane has not submitted any evidence to explain why she acted as she did, much less to establish that she was acting within her discretion.

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the right they allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time.

Roberts v. Engelke · filed 2022-03-14

Because the religious dietary accommodation Roberts was seeking was not clearly established as a First Amendment right before Ramadan 2020, I conclude that the defendants cannot be held liable for monetary damages, based on their failure to provide such accommodations at that time.

Qualified immunity does not shield correctional officers from a § 1983 retaliation claim when they had notice that threatening or harming an inmate for reporting officer misconduct violated the First Amendment.

Botts v. Sheppard · filed 2022-03-14

Defendants cannot reasonably argue that correctional officers lack notice that they would infringe an inmate’s First Amendment rights by threatening and harming the inmate after the inmate complained to a supervisor about the correctional officers’ conduct.

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

Biedermann v. Ehrhart · filed 2022-03-14

Having concluded that the First Amendment rights at issue were not clearly established, the Court need not address whether Plaintiff suffered a constitutional violation. ... The Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count One in its entirety and Count Two against Defendant in her individual capacity is GRANTED.

Officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law forbids using a vendor to deliver nonprivileged mail to an incarcerated person.

Martin v. Blake · filed 2022-03-14

Thus, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Martin’s First Amendment claim.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit may receive qualified immunity when the law did not clearly establish the official’s duty in the particular circumstances.

Harris v. Mayeri · filed 2022-03-16

As in Estate of Ford, the present case involves a situation where the general Eighth Amendment duty is well-known but the particular obligations for correctional staff in certain situations are open for debate.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the defendants violated clearly established law.

Hoeltzel v. Smith · filed 2022-03-17

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that qualified immunity bars all of the claims against all defendants. That finding is dispositive of the plaintiff’s claim, so the Court will not address the other substantive issues raised by the magistrate judge and the plaintiff’s objections.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law gave the officer notice that the alleged force was unlawful.

Senn v. Smith · filed 2022-03-18

In sum, every reasonable officer had notice at the time of the incident that, if reasonable alternatives are available, even in somewhat chaotic circumstances, he or she cannot pepper-spray a person who has committed no serious crime and who is not a threat to anyone’s safety.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the allegedly violated right was clearly established.

Mulbah v. Jansen · filed 2022-03-18

Thus, Mulbah has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that Jansen violated a clearly established right, and Jansen is entitled to qualified immunity on Count III.

Public officials are immune from § 1983 liability unless the plaintiff shows a constitutional violation of a clearly established right.

E. W. v. Detroit Pub. Sch. Dist. · filed 2022-03-21

Public officials, like Defendants here, are immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the plaintiff establishes both (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ when the event occurred such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated it.” Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)). ... Because material factual disputes preclude summary judgment in Defendants’ favor, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

Defendants in a § 1983 access-to-courts claim are entitled to qualified immunity when no clearly established law protects access for the civil litigation at issue.

Peck v. State of Nevada, ex rel · filed 2022-03-21

Civil lawsuits that are not § 1983 actions do not fall within the right to access the courts, and Peck does not point to any clearly established law that they do. The defendants therefore are entitled to summary judgment on the merits and on qualified immunity for these aspects of Peck’s claims.

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

Icon Entertainment Group v. Rosser · filed 2022-03-21

Mr. Rosser is therefore entitled to qualified immunity, and his motion for judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 liberty and property interest claims under the Fourteenth Amendment is GRANTED.

A government official sued under § 1983 may receive qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain School District · filed 2022-03-21

But we find that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that, in December 2017, it was clearly established law that a student-athlete had a constitutional right to be free from playing dangerous sports without protective equipment where it is foreseeable that an injury will occur.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent does not clearly establish that the defendant’s specific conduct violated a constitutional right.

Fox v. Fort · filed 2022-03-22

Fox fails to establish that this conduct violates clearly established law given that the cases presented are all distinguishable from Fort’s role in the promotional decisions. This is because all of them contained evidence of a defendant engaging in negative action against a plaintiff that was the impetus for the discriminatory decision or outcome. As a result, existing precedent does not provide answers to this constitutional question beyond debate, as required for a denial of qualified immunity.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when the plaintiff has not shown a constitutional violation.

Adams v. Demopolis City Board of Education · filed 2022-03-22

Because there is no evidence of any constitutional violation, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and all Defendants warrant summary judgment in their favor for all substantive due process claims.

An individual defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a federal right.

Slaughter v. Torres · filed 2022-03-22

Moreover, because Plaintiff failed to establish the violation of a federal right, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and Plaintiff’s false arrest claim against Defendant will be dismissed.

A defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time.

Sims v. City of Moss Point · filed 2022-03-22

In short, Plaintiff has not carried her summary judgment burden to demonstrate that Shipman’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time. Shipman is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Bethel v. Warden · filed 2022-03-22

Even if there is a constitutional right, it is not clearly established. ... Thus, Defendant Smith is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable officer could rely on other officers’ supported identification of a suspect without knowing that further investigation was required.

Rogers v. Bolin · filed 2022-03-22

Accordingly, the Court finds that even if Detective Lail’s actions did violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, a reasonable person in Detective Lail’s position could have failed to appreciate that her conduct would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the right they allegedly violated was clearly established.

Elliott v. Golston · filed 2022-03-22

He addressed each Defendant’s qualified immunity claim, assessed whether Plaintiff met his burden to show that qualified immunity was improper, and recommended an outcome to this Court. ... After reviewing the R&R, the motions for summary judgment, the video recordings, the relevant case law, and the other notable filings, the Court finds that Chief Judge Pham outlined the appropriate legal standards and correctly applied these standards to the facts of the case. ... Having reviewed the R&R and the entire record here, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in full (ECF No. 137) and GRANTS each Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 1983 permits civil liability for officers who violate clearly established federal rights, and qualified immunity does not shield officers whose conduct was objectively unreasonable.

Souter v. Irby · filed 2022-03-23

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects state officials from civil liability under § 1983 “unless their actions violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”” Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). ... Thus, the defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's false arrest, unreasonable seizure, or excessive use of force claims and summary judgment must be entered in favor of Plaintiff on these constitutional tort claims.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against officers whose conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Edwards v. Renalds · filed 2022-03-23

Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Edwards’s claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court will grant the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on that ground as to the § 1983 claims.

Qualified immunity does not protect a defendant in a § 1983 action when the conduct violates a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Ballou v. McElvain · filed 2022-03-24

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.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s facts show a violation of clearly established constitutional law.

Estate of Clemente N. Aguirre v. County of Riverside · filed 2022-03-24

We now turn to the principal question on appeal: Whether qualified immunity shields Ponder from Najera’s § 1983 claim. ... We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Ponder.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Dominguez v. City of Escondido · filed 2022-03-24

For these reasons, the Court concludes Defendant Officers Zeller and Spinos are entitled to qualified immunity in this case.

In an individual-capacity Section 1983 suit, an official who shows that the challenged conduct fell within his discretionary duties shifts the burden to the plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity.

Brown v. Thomas · filed 2022-03-24

Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates Defendant Thomas was acting within the scope of his discretionary duties at the time of the alleged incidents, which Plaintiff does not dispute. As such, Defendant Thomas carries his burden on qualified immunity and the burden now shifts to Plaintiff.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the complaint plausibly alleges gratuitous force against a restrained prisoner.

Skinner v. Gautreaux · filed 2022-03-24

Because Plaintiff was restrained when the use of force occurred, the constitutional violation fits the clearly established law that corrections officers may not use gratuitous force on a restrained prisoner. Based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, Braxton is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Simmons v. Brewer · filed 2022-03-24

As Magistrate Judge Altman concludes that Plaintiff fails to show that McLain violated his constitutional rights, she also concludes that McLain is entitled to qualified immunity. ... Therefore, after carefully reviewing the R&R, the Court concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Altman and is adopting the recommendation to grant summary judgment to McLain.

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

Daywitt v. Harpestead · filed 2022-03-24

Accordingly, Clanaugh is entitled to qualified immunity on each of Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Moret v. Ranganathan · filed 2022-03-25

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due process claims related to the involuntary administration of medication before his administrative hearing because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that the involuntary administration of medication before a hearing was unlawful under the circumstances.

A prison officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim when clearly established law would have made the alleged conduct unlawful to a reasonable officer.

Gordon v. Drummond · filed 2022-03-25

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s finding that Defendant Drummond is not entitled to qualified immunity is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Privately employed hospital police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

JOHNSON v. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ANDERSON · filed 2022-03-28

Therefore, the Court finds that the privately employed CHA-PD Officers Thomas and Allen are not entitled to assert qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 cannot obtain qualified immunity on the pleadings when the alleged facts show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Pearson v. Eldridge · filed 2022-03-28

Eldridge argues that he is entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Pearson’s § 1983 claims because qualified immunity shields him from lawsuit. His argument fails to appreciate that the immunity analysis at this early stage is based on how a reasonable officer in his position would view the case given Pearson’s version of events, as described in the complaint. If Pearson’s allegations are true and no mitigating factors are later established, the qualified immunity defense would fail.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity when existing law did not clearly establish that an official’s alleged conduct was unconstitutional.

Brandt v. Crone · filed 2022-03-28

Sheriff Crone is therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Brandt’s Fourth Amendment claim.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when they act within their discretionary authority and the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established rights.

Taylor v. Kemp · filed 2022-03-28

Application of this two-step framework here requires a finding Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Material disputes about an officer’s conduct can prevent summary judgment on qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Rodriguez v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-28

Defendants argue that Officer Zheng at least is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s excessive force claim under § 1983. ... Defendants fail to acknowledge the factual dispute as to whether Officer Zheng merely intended to pull alongside plaintiff or deliberately cut off his path of travel with his vehicle. I thus deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as it is subject to the same “genuine, material, factual disputes” as the excessive force claim itself.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a jury could find that officials could not reasonably have believed their conduct was lawful.

HAMMONDS v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-03-28

Assuming that Hammonds’ constitutional rights were violated, a jury could also find that Defendants could not reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful. As a result, summary judgment based upon a defense of qualified immunity will be denied.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an officer accused of using significant force against a non-resisting suspect when that prohibition was clearly established.

Evans v. Matson · filed 2022-03-29

However, it was clearly established in April 2014, that police officers could not use significant force on non-resisting suspects. See Abbott, 705 F.3d at 732-33. Office Matson is not entitled to qualified immunity for the plaintiff’s excessive force claim.

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

Heard v. Dulayev · filed 2022-03-29

As to the substance of the appeal, we hold that Heard has failed to show Dulayev’s use of the Taser violated a constitutional right clearly established at the time where Dulayev had ordered Heard to crawl, threatened to use his Taser, and repeatedly ordered Heard to stop, but where Heard still continued to approach Dulayev. We thus reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to Dulayev, and remand with instructions to grant Dulayev qualified immunity and enter judgment in Dulayev’s favor.

Officials sued for damages under Section 1983 have qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Williams v. Navarro · filed 2022-03-29

“Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” ... “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... On de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent would have put the defendant on notice that the conduct violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Thompson v. Lengerich · filed 2022-03-29

That might be if the case were in a different posture, but to overcome the individual Defendants’ qualified immunity defense and hold them liable for a violation of his rights, Plaintiff must show that existing precedent would have put them on notice they were violating his constitutional rights.

Section 1983 officers cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts bear on whether their warrantless entry was objectively reasonable.

Lucibella v. Town of Ocean Ridge · filed 2022-03-29

The Court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds as to the § 1983 unreasonable search claim in Count VII.

Government officials may invoke qualified immunity against § 1983 claims, and the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating that defense once it is asserted.

Vega v. Gusman · filed 2022-03-29

After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Deputy Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Qualified Immunity. ... As a defense to § 1983 claims, government officials may invoke qualified immunity, which “shields government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

A municipal official cannot obtain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at this stage based on an asserted failure to request a name-clearing hearing when the plaintiff plausibly alleges that he made the request.

White v. City of Boston · filed 2022-03-29

For the same reason that specific contention does not warrant a finding that the stigma-plus claim is futile, it cannot support granting qualified immunity to Janey now.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts prevent the court from deciding whether the officer violated the plaintiff’s rights.

Ramos-Ramirez v. Berwick Borough · filed 2022-03-29

The Court therefore declines to grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim cannot be resolved at summary judgment when disputed facts determine whether it applies.

Fillyaw v. Tenhaken · filed 2022-03-30

Here, Fillyaw’s version of events and the defendants’ version of events are so different that I cannot determine at this stage whether qualified immunity applies. The defendants may revisit this question after a jury resolves the factual disputes.

Qualified immunity does not shield a prison doctor from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff’s facts could establish a violation of clearly established Eighth Amendment rights.

Murray v. State of Ohio Dep't of Corrections · filed 2022-03-30

Murray timely brought an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Heyd for deliberate indifference to Murray’s serious medical needs. Dr. Heyd sought qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied. He now seeks a review of that ruling through the present interlocutory appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that Dr. Heyd is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

A state officer sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s evidence could establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Knibbs v. Anthony Momphard, Jr. · filed 2022-03-30

Under these circumstances, the contours of Knibbs’ constitutional right were “beyond debate” in April 2018. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s award of summary judgment to Deputy Momphard on the Estate’s § 1983 claim against him in his individual capacity.

At the pleading stage, an official seeking qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim must show entitlement to it on the face of the complaint.

Baptist v. Chandler · filed 2022-03-30

It is Mr. Chandler’s burden at this stage to demonstrate that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the few facts alleged, and he has failed to do so. For this reason, the Court denies qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings to Mr. Chandler.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when the law at the time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Pritchard v. Mobley · filed 2022-03-30

The inquiry ends here as Officer Mobley is at least entitled to qualified immunity.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to establish a violation of a constitutional right.

White v. Erdos · filed 2022-03-30

After reviewing all evidence in this case, the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the evidence does not establish Corrections Officer Parish used excessive force against White when he was escorted to a new cell. Thus, White failed to establish a violation of his Constitutional rights. As such, Corrections Officer Parish is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity at summary judgment when a jury could find that an officer intentionally used force that violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Walters v. Jones · filed 2022-03-30

Because a reasonable jury could conclude (1) that Jones intentionally kicked Walters, (2) that the intentional kick constituted excessive force, and (3) that Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity, the Court DENIES Jones’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32).

Section 1983 state-created danger claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Tarashuk v. Orangeburg County · filed 2022-03-30

The court finds Tarashuk’s constitutional right to be free from state-created danger in this factual context was not clearly established, and therefore, Doroski is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

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

Brewster v. Mills · filed 2022-03-31

The Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Private prison contractors who act under color of law may be sued under § 1983 but cannot invoke qualified immunity.

CASSADY v. DOZIER · filed 2022-03-31

Although they are state actors such that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against them are cognizable under § 1983 and analyzed under the same framework, they are not entitled to invoke qualified immunity.

Officers who consult a prosecutor after an arrest are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when the facts supporting the arrest remain disputed.

Crews v. Martinez · filed 2022-03-31

But here, unlike in Zimmerman, Defendants consulted ASA Alayo after they had already arrested Plaintiff, not before or during their interactions with Plaintiff. ... In these circumstances, consultation with an ASA does not entitle Defendants to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Jackson v. Stubenvoll · filed 2022-03-31

Stubenvoll is further entitled to a defense of qualified immunity here.

In a § 1983 suit against a police officer, the plaintiff must overcome qualified immunity by showing a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Davis v. Walleman · filed 2022-03-31

Therefore, Officer Walleman is entitled to qualified immunity on Davis’ excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity damages claim under § 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Blackwell v. Inkster, City of · filed 2022-03-31

While, as Blackwell points out, see ECF No. 29, PageID.1341, the right to free expression in public forums has been clearly established for decades, the applicability of those doctrines to social media is anything but. Therefore, Mayor Wimberly is entitled to qualified immunity. Because Mayor Wimberly is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity on Blackwell’s claim for damages and, as discussed above, injunctive relief against Mayor Wimberly under § 1983 would properly run against the Mayor in his official, not individual, capacity, all claims against Mayor Wimberly in his individual capacity will be dismissed.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when no reasonable official in their position would have had fair warning that the challenged conduct violated clearly established law.

Hartley v. Johnson · filed 2022-03-31

The factual record that has been presented cannot sustain the Fourteenth Amendment claim against the defense that no reasonable prison official in the defendants’ positions would have been under fair warning that their conduct violated clearly established law.

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

Parsons v. Ann Arbor, City of · filed 2022-03-31

The Court will therefore grant qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred.

Defendants facing a Section 1983 deliberate indifference claim are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when a reasonable jury could find that they were deliberately indifferent.

MILLER v. BEDFORD COUNTY · filed 2022-03-31

Accordingly, following this Court’s Order, Miller’s only remaining claim is a Section 1983 claim against: (1) Bedford County, (2) BCCF, (3) Nelson, and (4) Habinyak. ... Therefore, because the Magistrate Judge held, and because this Court agrees, that a reasonable jury could find in favor of Miller on the issue of deliberate indifference, neither Nelson nor Habinyak is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

A government official may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint fails to plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Howell v. Gonzalez · filed 2022-03-31

Accordingly, the Detectives are entitled to qualified immunity on Count II.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot identify clearly established law making their specific conduct unlawful.

Gaddis v. DeMattei · filed 2022-04-01

Because Gaddis cannot identify the required clearly established law, we need not inquire whether the officers here violated the constitution.

In a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Lumsden v. Lumpkin · filed 2022-04-01

To overcome an assertion of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established when the violation occurred. ... Because Lumsden did not present competent summary judgment evidence showing a constitutional violation, he failed to rebut the qualified immunity defense.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed facts could show that a reasonable officer would have understood the force used violated a clearly established right.

Choi v. City of Lakewood · filed 2022-04-04

Officer Butts’ claim to qualified immunity should be denied. There are issues of fact as to whether a reasonable officer would have understood that using sufficient force to brake the Plaintiff’s arm in two places while trying to bring her arm behind her to handcuff her violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

A government employee facing a Section 1983 claim is not entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint plausibly alleges conduct that violates a clearly established right.

Fountain v. Arizona, State of · filed 2022-04-04

A government employee alleged to have committed a § 1983 violation is protected from liability by qualified immunity unless his or her conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... From the allegations in the FAC, Van Winkle is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 defendant cannot obtain qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss by relying on evidence outside the complaint.

Williams v. Brown · filed 2022-04-04

Defendant Gulick’s argument requires the consideration of extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the complaint, which the Court cannot do on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not protect a public official from a Section 1983 claim when the facts show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Doe v. Chapman · filed 2022-04-07

Public officials are protected by qualified immunity unless the facts show a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. ... Because Doe’s constitutional right to apply for a judicial bypass without notifying her parents is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent, this court need not address Chapman’s other arguments about qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not apply to claims for injunctive relief under § 1983, though it may apply to claims for damages.

(PC) Salas v. Allison · filed 2022-04-07

Accordingly, although defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to any injunctive relief claims, they might be entitled to qualified immunity with regard to plaintiff’s claims for damages.

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

Brown v. Tran · filed 2022-04-07

Alternatively, because there was no constitutional violation, Tran is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive-force claim when a jury could find that he used force against an inmate without a legitimate security reason.

Sain, Zallassio v. Dane County · filed 2022-04-08

As explained above, in this case, a reasonable jury could conclude from the facts provided by the parties that defendant forcibly yanked plaintiff and swung his body towards the wall without having a legitimate security-based reason for doing so. Accordingly, I conclude that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity grounds.

Officers sued under § 1983 for false arrest have qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed.

Dukes v. City Of Freeport Illinois · filed 2022-04-11

Because a reasonable officer could have believed Godsil’s statements that Plaintiffs were acting aggressively, and thus were more than merely speaking and arguing, the individual City Defendants had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for disorderly conduct, so the question of probable cause was not “beyond debate.” Qualified immunity provides the individual City Defendants with an alternative basis for summary judgment on this claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless existing precedent clearly establishes that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Reynolds v. Addis · filed 2022-04-11

Because “existing precedent has not placed the constitutional question beyond debate,” Addis is entitled to qualified immunity on Reynolds’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they infringed a clearly established constitutional right or acted objectively unreasonably.

Carpenter v. Itawamba Co. Jail · filed 2022-04-11

For the reasons set forth above, the defendants enjoy qualified immunity because, as to each of his claims, the plaintiff has neither alleged an infringement of a clearly established constitutional right, nor shown that the defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity shields officials from Section 1983 claims brought against them in their individual capacities, but does not defend against official-capacity claims.

Brown v. Gammage · filed 2022-04-12

The doctrine of qualified immunity only shields officials acting in their individual capacities.

A government official sued for damages under Section 1983 has qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Charles v. Holcomb · filed 2022-04-12

Because the court of appeals has held that “no case clearly establishes that denying treatment [for gender dysphoria] beyond hormone therapy is unconstitutional,” Warden Neal is entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Renee’s claim for money damages.

A state officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the officer did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional right.

Betts v. Brennan · filed 2022-04-12

The Fifth Circuit determined that Trooper Brennan did not violate the Fourth Amendment by tasing Betts one time in order to arrest him. Therefore, Trooper Brennan is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim does not bar limited discovery that imposes a minimal burden on the officials and primarily concerns a separate negligence claim.

Knight v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2022-04-12

In any event, even where qualified immunity is presented, courts have allowed limited discovery like that being sought here. ... The Court finds that the limited discovery sought imposes a very minimal burden on the potentially immune parties and is warranted in the circumstances presented by this case.

In a § 1983 suit, qualified immunity protects a jail medical provider when clearly established law would not have alerted a reasonable provider that the care violated a detainee’s constitutional rights.

Russell v. Lumitap · filed 2022-04-13

Although Nurse Trout is shielded by qualified immunity because her actions did not violate then-existing clearly established law, there is at least a genuine dispute of material fact over whether Dr. Le’s and Nurses Teofilo’s and Lumitap’s conduct violated clearly established law as it then stood. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Nurse Trout, and we affirm its denial of qualified immunity to Dr. Le and Nurses Teofilo and Lumitap.

Qualified immunity does not protect an officer from a § 1983 claim when depriving an inmate of access to the Old Testament for two months violated a clearly established free exercise right.

Dobbins v. Unknown Party · filed 2022-04-13

It would be clear to any reasonable officer faced with Montejano’s decision that depriving Plaintiff of access to the Old Testament for two months was unlawful. Therefore, the Court will not grant summary judgment on qualified immunity.

An officer seeking qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim must show that immunity applies even when disputed facts are viewed in the plaintiff’s favor.

Fowler v. Blanco · filed 2022-04-15

Given the factual disputes, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment only if they can show that qualified immunity attaches even under the facts viewed most favorably to Plaintiffs. But Defendants do not make this argument.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when disputed facts bear on whether the officer knew his conduct was unlawful.

Raugust v. Abbey · filed 2022-04-15

Thus, due to the genuine dispute of material facts concerning whether Abbey knew of Raugust’s alibi and whether Abbey attached any significance to his observation, the issue of qualified immunity cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s conduct.

Montgomery v. Calvano · filed 2022-04-18

We therefore affirm the district court’s conclusion that Calvano’s arrest of Montgomery did not violate clearly established law.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when material facts remain disputed about whether the plaintiff had a serious medical need.

MCCALL v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-04-18

Even if Thazhathel meant to argue that McCall cannot establish a serious medical need because his injury did not result in substantial harm, Thazhathel still would not be entitled to qualified immunity because taken in the light most favorable to McCall there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether he had a serious medical need.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a federal right.

Plumb v. University of Utah · filed 2022-04-19

As the court will discuss, Dr. Whitaker’s actions did not violate the Due Process Clause, so he is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Mr. Plumb’s remaining § 1983 claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a traffic stop does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.

Delph v. Prince William County, Virginia · filed 2022-04-19

Accordingly, even if the Amended Complaint alleged that an unlawful stop occurred, the allegations still do not defeat defendant’s claim that he is entitled to immunity as to this stop because the stop was not made in violation of plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for a warrantless arrest is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the arrest violated clearly established law.

Stokes v. Matranga · filed 2022-04-19

Here, we conclude that Sergeant Matranga is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate “clearly established” law.

A factual dispute about the threat an officer faced is material to qualified immunity in a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when it affects whether the force violated clearly established law.

Edwards v. Oliver · filed 2022-04-19

Importantly, the resolution of this factual dispute is material because it affects both whether Oliver’s use of force was reasonable and whether the force he used violated clearly established law.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when a jury could find that an officer violated a clearly established right by using deadly force against a person holding a firearm in a non-threatening manner inside his home.

Knibbs v. Anthony Momphard, Jr. · filed 2022-04-19

Therefore, if a jury accepts the Estate’s version of the events, Deputy Momphard could be found to have violated Knibbs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment right to possess a firearm in his own home in a non-threatening manner while investigating a nocturnal disturbance on his premises. ... Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s award of summary judgment to Deputy Momphard on the Estate’s § 1983 claim against him in his individual capacity.

Qualified immunity protects individuals sued for money damages under § 1983 in their individual capacities.

Wolfe v. The City of Town and Country · filed 2022-04-20

Qualified immunity protects individuals who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages under § 1983.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiffs fail to show that the officer violated their constitutional rights.

Roach v. White · filed 2022-04-20

Based upon the Court’s discussion above that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiffs, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Deputy Ellison is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Deputy Ellison violated their constitutional rights.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim that an officer beat a handcuffed convict and allowed a police dog to bite him after he was subdued.

Hughes v. Rodriguez · filed 2022-04-21

We hold that Officer Michael Rodriguez is not entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 as to the claimed post- handcuff beating and dog-biting.