42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Halik v. Darbyshire · filed 2021-09-22

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

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

Kestenberg v. Dwyer · filed 2021-09-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melnik v. Dzurenda · filed 2021-09-27

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

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

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

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

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

Endicott v. Hurley · filed 2021-09-27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baron v. Lissade · filed 2021-09-27

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

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

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

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

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

Ballou v. McElvain · filed 2021-09-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wheeler v. Kidder · filed 2021-09-29

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

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

Brown v. Fluellen · filed 2021-09-29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freistat v. NYPD · filed 2021-09-29

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

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

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

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

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

VINOSKY v. CONSIGLIO · filed 2021-09-29

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

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

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

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

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

Riddick v. Franklin · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

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

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

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

Ulysse v. Stokes · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Crider v. Williams · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Monk v. Flowers · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Luther v. Hunt · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Gomez v. Hoo · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Palmer v. Robbins · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Jones v. Davis · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

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

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

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

Aljoe v. Adams · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

STOCK v. BRASWELL · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

Almond v. Butler · filed 2021-09-30

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

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

French v. Merrill · filed 2021-10-01

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

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

Cain v. Rinehart · filed 2021-10-01

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

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

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

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

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

Rolfes v. Davis · filed 2021-10-04

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

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

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

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

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

(PC) Rico v. Beard · filed 2021-10-05

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McDougald v. Clagg · filed 2021-10-05

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

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

Douglas v. Dixon · filed 2021-10-06

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

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

Matzell v. Annucci · filed 2021-10-07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xavier v. Tanori · filed 2021-10-13

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

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

Roncales v. McDowell · filed 2021-10-14

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

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

Silva v. Read · filed 2021-10-14

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

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

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

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

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

Baysa v. Gualtieri · filed 2021-10-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samuels v. Ahlin · filed 2021-10-19

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

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

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

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

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

Reid v. Phillips · filed 2021-10-21

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

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

Nall v. Adamson · filed 2021-10-22

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

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

Richards v. Cox · filed 2021-10-25

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

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

Schantz v. Deloach · filed 2021-10-26

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

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

Trail v. Cressell · filed 2021-10-26

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

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

HARVEY v. YOCHUM · filed 2021-10-26

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

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

McDougal v. Penn · filed 2021-10-27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.