42 U.S.C. § 1983

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.

Section 1983 does not allow individual-capacity monetary damages against officers entitled to qualified immunity.

Green v. Zuelke · filed 2022-04-21

Upon review of the record and the parties’ arguments as well as parsing the actions of each Defendant, see FW video; HH video, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from monetary damages in their individual capacities as to Green’s Eighth Amendment claims against them.

In a § 1983 claim, the court may consider the alleged constitutional violation as part of its qualified immunity analysis; disputed facts about that violation can prevent summary judgment.

Smith v. The City of Pennsboro · filed 2022-04-22

But because the qualified immunity analysis necessarily involves an examination of whether a constitutional violation occurred, the Court will collapse the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the qualified immunity analysis. ... Accordingly, because there are material facts in dispute concerning whether Officer Davis had probable cause to arrest Smith for any of the three offenses charged, the Court DENIES Officer Davis’s motion for summary judgment on this Fourth Amendment claim, and turns next to consider Officer Davis’s motion regarding Smith’s excessive force claim.

In a § 1983 claim, the qualified immunity analysis includes whether the officer violated a constitutional right.

Owens v. The City Of Pennsboro · filed 2022-04-22

But because the qualified immunity analysis necessarily involves an examination of whether a constitutional violation occurred, the Court will collapse the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the qualified immunity analysis.

In a Section 1983 suit, once an official raises qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of negating it.

Smith v. Lee · filed 2022-04-22

While qualified immunity is technically an affirmative defense, once it has been raised, it is the plaintiff’s burden to negate the defense.

A prosecutor acting as the state’s advocate in post-conviction proceedings is absolutely immune from damages under Section 1983; qualified immunity also applies when no clearly established right barred the conduct.

Perez v. Teresinski · filed 2022-04-22

Mr. Teresinski acted as an advocate when he contacted Mr. Brown, and no case suggested it was improper for him to do so at the time. He is therefore entitled to absolute and qualified immunity.

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

Tarter v. The Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority · filed 2022-04-22

Because any right the MNAA officers may have violated in this case was not “clearly established,” the officers are covered by qualified immunity, which means summary judgment in their favor is appropriate on Mr. Tarter’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 does not permit damages against individual officials protected by qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time.

Atayde v. Napa State Hospital · filed 2022-04-25

Because a right is not clearly established unless “existing precedent [has] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate,” the court must grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on qualified immunity grounds here.

An officer sued under Section 1983 may receive qualified immunity when reliance on fellow officers’ information to prepare a warrant application was objectively reasonable.

Pickens v. Hendricks · filed 2022-04-25

Defendant Hendricks argues in the alternative that he is entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it was objectively unreasonable for him to rely on information from his fellow officers in completing the warrant application. The Plaintiff has not attempted to rebut Defendant Hendricks’ qualified immunity argument, and the Court finds it to be persuasive. Accordingly, Defendant Hendricks is likewise entitled to dismissal based on qualified immunity.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim when she had arguable probable cause to initiate the prosecution, even if she acted with malice.

Cornelio v. Connecticut · filed 2022-04-26

Though we conclude that Jeney had arguable probable cause and therefore qualified immunity for her actions in this case, we note that Cornelio plausibly alleges that the prosecution was motivated by malice.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable officer would not have known the conduct violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Penate v. Scampini · filed 2022-04-26

Finally, even if a jury reasonably could find that Detective Sullivan’s actions constituted excessive force, Detective Sullivan is entitled to qualified immunity. It would not have been clear to a reasonable officer at the time of the incident that Detective Sullivan’s actions violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when a jury could find that they violated a clearly established right by using excessive force.

Taylor v. City of Dunbar · filed 2022-04-27

A jury crediting Mr. Taylor’s testimony could find that Officers Barker and Lester violated his clearly established right to be free from the use of excessive force.

An officer with arguable probable cause is entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims.

Steinbergin v. City of New York · filed 2022-04-27

The existence of arguable probable cause is enough to dispose of the false arrest and false imprisonment claims because it entitles the defendants to qualified immunity on these claims.

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

Rose v. Gibson · filed 2022-04-27

Collins, Hodges, and Ellis are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim, however, because Rose’s constitutional right against malicious prosecution was not clearly established when he was arrested in 2013.

A municipality cannot claim qualified immunity from a § 1983 suit.

Peterson v. City and County of Denver · filed 2022-04-27

And while the City and County of Denver seek dismissal of the claims against them, they are not protected by qualified immunity as a matter of law.

A state officer is shielded from damages under Section 1983 by qualified immunity unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

FLEMING v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-04-27

This defense provides that a state officer is shielded from a suit for monetary damages under § 1983 unless “the official violated a...constitutional right,” and “the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” ... Thus, Jones is entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to intervene claim.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an officer whose conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Jensen, Tristan v. Budreau, Anthony · filed 2022-04-28

In sum, plaintiff has failed to identify existing, clearly-established precedent that would have put Budreau on notice that his actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that they violated clearly established law.

Davis v. Dahlkamp · filed 2022-04-28

In such a case, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff can show that they violated “clearly established law.”

Qualified immunity shields officers from Section 1983 liability unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established federal right.

Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio · filed 2022-04-29

Qualified immunity protects state officers against section 1983 claims unless (1) “they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time” of the offense. ... Thus, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Novak’s retaliation claims.

Prison officials may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 failure-to-protect claim.

Braxton v. Bell · filed 2022-04-29

Defendants do not object to the Magistrate’s findings that Holland and Marion are not entitled to qualified immunity. See generally Defs.’ Obj. The Court reviews this analysis for clear error and finds none.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity from an unlawful-arrest claim when the alleged arrest was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.

Polnac v. City of Sulphur Springs · filed 2022-04-29

After considering applicable precedent and Polnac’s Second Amended Complaint, the law at the time of Polnac’s arrest clearly established that it was objectively unreasonable for the Officers to arrest Polnac.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an officer when no clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct.

Johnson v. Ortiz · filed 2022-05-02

We can therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that Ortiz is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects public employees from individual damages liability under § 1983 unless they violate clearly established law.

DEPINTO v. SHADER · filed 2022-05-02

Second, qualified immunity applies to § 1983 damages claims against public employees and protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

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

Carter, III v. Klemm · filed 2022-05-02

Because Carter failed to establish a First Amendment violation, defendant Wireman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 unlawful pretrial detention claim when arguable probable cause supported the arrest.

Alexander v. City of Danville Illinois · filed 2022-05-03

As such, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 unlawful pretrial detention claim.

A plaintiff bringing a Section 1983 claim against officials who assert qualified immunity may be required to specify each official’s conduct in a Rule 7(a) reply.

Davis v. Fernandez · filed 2022-05-03

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a Rule 7(a) reply is GRANTED in part, requiring a fact-focused reply detailing the specific acts of defendants Crosby and Blanchard that allegedly caused a constitutional wrong.

Prison officials sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when clearly established law warns that persisting in known ineffective medical treatment violates a prisoner’s rights.

Stewart v. Aranas · filed 2022-05-04

Besides, the prison officials knew that they violate the constitution when they persist in a treatment known to be ineffective. ... Therefore, we conclude that the prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity did not warrant dismissing the § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim against a prison clinician.

Zimmerman v. Todd · filed 2022-05-04

Pautz argues in the alternative that qualified immunity warrants dismissal of this cause of action. The Court disagrees.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability under § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Rossi v. Dudek · filed 2022-05-05

This appeal turns on qualified immunity. “[T]he doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly ... established statutory or constitutional rights.”

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

Striz v. Collier · filed 2022-05-05

Qualified immunity is not a defense to Striz’s claims for injunctive relief.

Section 1983 permits an excessive force claim against an officer when a jury could find a constitutional violation and the right was clearly established at the time.

Dayna Lee v. Russ · filed 2022-05-06

Qualified immunity protects Russ unless (1) he violated Groom’s constitutional rights and (2) those rights were clearly established at the time. ... On this record, a reasonable jury could find that Russ used excessive force. ... In the second place, this right was clearly established in this context.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when disputed material facts determine whether he violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Wenrich v. Franz · filed 2022-05-09

Trooper Franz is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity, and his Motion is denied as to Wenrich’s claim regarding the OVI investigation.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right that was clearly established at the time.

Davis v. Spear · filed 2022-05-10

Officers are “entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiffs], 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.” ... The order denying qualified immunity is affirmed, the partial summary judgment is affirmed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in comparable circumstances.

Cosme v. Faucher · filed 2022-05-10

Absent a controlling decision suggesting that prison officials’ actions in a circumstance similar to the one presented here are unconstitutional, the Court cannot find that the right Plaintiff claims was violated was clearly established. Thus, Defendants are protected by qualified immunity on this claim.

An individual sued under § 1983 may assert qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established right.

Fields v. Kansas Department of Corrections · filed 2022-05-10

“Individual defendants named in a § 1983 action may raise a defense of qualified immunity.” ... Accordingly, Officer Snyder is entitled to qualified immunity as to any federal claim asserted against him in his individual capacity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the inmate’s evidence supports a violation of a clearly established Eighth Amendment right.

Ross v. Carver · filed 2022-05-10

The Court finds that it was clearly established at the time of the complained-of events that an inmate had an Eighth Amendment right to be protected against the type of force supported by Ross’s evidence. Accordingly, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity in these summary judgment proceedings.

A Section 1983 medical indifference claim can withstand qualified immunity at the pleading stage when the allegations show that prison officials ignored a potentially life-threatening condition in violation of a clearly established right.

Marra v. Quiros · filed 2022-05-11

At this stage, I conclude that Marra has alleged sufficient facts, when taken as true and when all reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor, to withstand a defense of qualified immunity as to his colonoscopy claim and therefore, I deny the motion to dismiss as to that claim.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the official violated clearly established law.

Mead v. Burkhart · filed 2022-05-11

Mead has not persuaded the Court that Burkart’s search of his backpack violated clearly established law. Accordingly, Burkart is entitled to qualified immunity on Mead’s Section 1983 claim against him.

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

Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska · filed 2022-05-11

Because the plaintiffs have failed to allege any violations of a clearly established equal-protection right that goes beyond labels and conclusions, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and any such claims are dismissed.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the law did not give fair warning that the officer’s specific conduct violated a clearly established right.

Burnett v. Josh Griffith · filed 2022-05-12

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the state of the law at the time that Sergeant Griffith acted did not provide him with fair warning that his actions would violate Burnett’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 claim when the officer violates a clearly established right.

Paez v. Nutsch · filed 2022-05-12

Any reasonable officer in Nutsch’s position would have known that he could not conduct a roadside strip search without a warrant unless some exception applied, and he does not claim an exception. Consequently, Nutsch’s defense of qualified immunity fails with respect to Paez’s claims involving the strip search.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when his use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

McFarland v. Lee County Adult Detention Center · filed 2022-05-13

As such, he is shielded by qualified immunity, and the court will dismiss the instant case for that reason.

An official is entitled to qualified immunity from an individual-capacity Section 1983 claim when no constitutional violation occurred.

Griffin v. Mortier · filed 2022-05-13

Because a reasonable juror could not find that Defendant Mortier violated a constitutional right in the first place, Defendant Mortier is also entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Plaintiff’s individual capacity claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when, on the plaintiff’s account, they punched and kicked a suspect after he surrendered.

Ramos v. Hy · filed 2022-05-16

And, accepting Plaintiff’s narrative for purposes of this motion, Defendants would not be entitled to qualified immunity under those circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 medical care claim when material facts about the officers’ response are disputed and the detainee’s right to medical care was clearly established.

Tucker v. Brooks · filed 2022-05-16

A pretrial detainee’s right to receive medical care is clearly established. ... This two- day delay of medical treatment under these circumstances is a sufficient showing that there is a material factual issue related to whether the Defendants acted objectively reasonably.

An officer sued under Section 1983 for excessive force is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the evidence creates a genuine dispute about whether the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Chambers v. City of Jackson, Mississippi · filed 2022-05-18

Chambers offers summary judgment evidence sufficient to create a genuine fact issue as to whether Short’s conduct in pulling Chambers from his car and slamming him on the ground was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. The motion for summary judgment as to Officer Kenneth Short is denied.

An officer sued under Section 1983 meets the initial threshold for qualified immunity by proving that the challenged conduct fell within his discretionary authority.

Saint-Vil v. City of Miami Beach · filed 2022-05-19

Accordingly, putting the alleged constitutional infirmity aside, as it must, the Court finds that Officer Rodriguez was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he interacted with Mr. Saint-Vil.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 arrest claim when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a lack of arguable probable cause.

Hernandez v. Wells · filed 2022-05-20

Hernandez fails to allege that Riley lacked arguable probable cause to believe that Hernandez was driving with a suspended license, entitling Riley to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when their conduct does not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

CLEMONS v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO · filed 2022-05-19

Accordingly, Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to each of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment search claims, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each claim.

Officers sued under § 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when prior precedent clearly established that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Andrews v. City of Henderson · filed 2022-05-23

We hold that Blankenhorn clearly established—and thus “put a prudent officer on notice”—that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by tackling and piling on top of a “relatively calm,” non-resisting suspect who posed little threat of safety without any prior warning and without attempting a less violent means of effecting an arrest.

Section 1983 does not afford qualified immunity to an official who violates a clearly established right to medical privacy by disclosing confidential information without consent or a public interest.

Grimes v. County Of Cook · filed 2022-05-24

It follows that Judkins is not entitled to qualified immunity on Grimes’s § 1983 claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim if the officer did not violate clearly established law.

Torres v. Sheriff Rod Howell · filed 2022-05-25

Even supposing the district court was incorrect in finding no Fourth Amendment violation, the record establishes that Deputy Luke did not violate any clearly established law, and therefore is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that the arrest ordinance was grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional, leaving no arguable probable cause.

Garin v. Menegazzo · filed 2022-05-25

Defendant’s second argument that there was arguable probable cause and that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity similarly fails. As noted above, by challenging the facial constitutionality of the Noise Ordinances, Plaintiff effectively alleges that there was no arguable probable cause that Plaintiff violated any presumptively valid law.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances.

Amaral v. City of San Diego · filed 2022-05-26

The district court correctly granted Williams qualified immunity because “existing precedent” did not “place the lawfulness of the particular [action] beyond debate.” City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500, 504 (2019) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

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

McMichael v. Diroff · filed 2022-05-26

Since the video shows that McMichael struggled with defendants as they attempted to arrest him, the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity against the excessive force claims.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 excessive-force claim cannot be resolved at summary judgment while relevant factual disputes remain.

TINCH v. LOWER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2022-05-26

The Court finds that it cannot properly rule on Defendants’ qualified immunity defense until the relevant factual disputes are resolved.

Section 1983 supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity from a failure-to-intervene claim when their alleged liability is not clearly established.

Beaty v. Dunn · filed 2022-05-27

Therefore, unlike the failure to protect claim discussed above, the Court finds that even if there is a violation of law, that violation is not clearly established, and the qualified immunity defense renders repleading futile with respect to the failure to intervene claim as against Culliver, Dunn, McConnell, Lovelace, Naglich, Drake, Jones, and Harris.

A § 1983 claim against a prison officer can survive a qualified-immunity motion for summary judgment when the evidence raises a material factual question about a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Frazier v. Dollar · filed 2022-05-31

While the violation of TDOC policy does not itself prove a constitutional violation, the Court finds that the TDOC’s findings in Morley’s termination letter are sufficient to create a material question of fact as to whether his responses to Plaintiff’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights to be free from excessive force and exposure to severe weather.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on an officer whose objectively reasonable conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Jones v. City of New York · filed 2022-06-01

Furthermore, the defendants established that Detective Grayson's actions were privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity, as they were objectively reasonable ( see Boyd v City of New York , 149 AD3d 683, 686; Davila v City of New York , 139 AD3d 890, 893), and his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known ( see Davila v City of New York , 139 AD3d at 893).

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a Section 1983 claim when no clearly established law prohibits the officer’s use of a leg sweep on a fleeing person.

Larkin v. Derek Kenison, Jr. · filed 2022-06-01

The district court erred in denying qualified immunity to Officer Kenison. At the time, there was no clearly established right for a person fleeing police to be free from a leg sweep.

Section 1983 claims against an officer are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Cutler v. Nanos · filed 2022-06-01

Because Cutler has not met his burden of establishing that David’s rights were clearly established, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in Deputy Barnes’s favor based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects officers from Section 1983 claims when existing precedent did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful under the circumstances.

Burghardt v. Ryan · filed 2022-06-01

Thus, at the time of this shooting, no case from this court or the Supreme Court made clear that, under these circumstances, the officers could not open fire. Qualified immunity therefore protects Ryan and London as to the federal claims.

Section 1983 officers are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when material factual disputes could establish that they violated clearly established rights.

Sims v. Griffin · filed 2022-06-01

More importantly, these facts capture in a nutshell why the officers aren’t entitled to qualified immunity at this point.

Section 1983 damages claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity, but dismissal on that ground requires the defense to be established from the complaint at the pleading stage.

D'Onofrio v. Westport/Weston Health District · filed 2022-06-02

But not every violation of the Constitution justifies an award of money damages under § 1983. That is because the doctrine of qualified immunity protects a government official from liability if “(1) his conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the challenged act.” ... At this initial pleading stage, Cooper has yet to establish grounds for qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law would put a reasonable officer on notice that the conduct was unconstitutional.

Salter v. Detroit, City of · filed 2022-06-02

As a result, the court finds that a reasonable officer in 2003 would be ... on notice that the use of a single-photo identification along with the remarkable discrepancy between the witness’s description of the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s actual characteristics would be unconstitutional and thus, Olsen is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

An official acting within discretionary authority may invoke qualified immunity against an individual capacity Section 1983 claim.

Purvis v. Escambia County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-06-03

The evidence supports that they were, in fact, acting within the course and scope of their discretionary authority.

An officer’s argument that a plaintiff failed to prove a due process violation addresses the merits of a Section 1983 claim rather than qualified immunity.

Plemmons v. Rokey · filed 2022-06-03

The Rock Falls Defendants also argued that Officer Rokey is qualifiedly immune from suit. Dkt. 96, at 7. The argument rests entirely on the contention that Plemmons has failed to prove his due process claim. But that is not a qualified immunity argument. It is a merits argument, and one on which the Rock Falls Defendants have not met their burden.

A § 1983 claim against a public official can be dismissed on qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Serpik v. Marsee · filed 2022-06-06

Additionally, Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim under § 1983 fails because Plaintiff has failed to show that the law was clearly established.

In a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must identify a sufficiently specific, clearly established right to overcome a public official’s qualified immunity defense.

Serpik v. Marsee · filed 2022-06-06

Because Plaintiff is obligated to identify legal authority that rendered his rights “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes and because he has failed to do so, Defendant Marsee is entitled to qualified immunity.

Individual defendants in a Section 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established federal law.

Barrow v. Kansas State University · filed 2022-06-09

Accordingly, Defendants Spears and Taber are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claims asserted against them in their individual capacities.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for an officer, but factual disputes over whether the officer violated a constitutional right can preclude summary judgment on that defense.

Gough v. Semexan · filed 2022-06-09

In light of material factual disputes regarding whether defendant committed a constitutional violation by using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as discussed above, the court concludes that summary judgment is not warranted for defendant on the issue of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established.

Wright v. Lassiter · filed 2022-06-09

Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant Hergenrother is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because it is not clearly established that an inmate letter marked “confidential” that is addressed to the Judicial Standards Commission qualifies as “legal mail,” such that its opening outside of the Plaintiff’s presence would violate the First Amendment.

Qualified immunity bars damages against an officer under Section 1983 when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

City Union Mission, Inc. v. Sharp · filed 2022-06-10

We do not decide whether City Union Mission has stated a plausible claim for a violation of a constitutional right because, even assuming that it has, Sheriff Sharp is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when a genuine dispute of material fact concerns the officer’s conduct.

Vaughn v. Parker · filed 2022-06-10

This conflicting testimony presents a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the portion of the R&R regarding qualified immunity and denies Defendant’s MSJ on the basis of qualified immunity.

A plaintiff pursuing a Section 1983 unlawful arrest claim must show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the arrest to overcome qualified immunity.

Parker v. SDSU Police Dept (SDSUPD) · filed 2022-06-10

Accordingly, even if Plaintiff had shown he was arrested for refusing to initially identify himself, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that right was clearly established at the time of his arrest. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim under § 1983.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when the record does not establish that an officer knew facts justifying the use of deadly force.

Arrington v. City of Chicago, Illinois · filed 2022-06-10

Because the record does not conclusively show that Ewing was aware of facts that would have triggered the exception, the Court cannot hold that he is entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim cannot be granted at summary judgment when the record does not establish whether the officer knew the fleeing suspect posed a serious risk to others.

Stevenson v. City of Chicago · filed 2022-06-10

Because the record does not conclusively show that Ewing was aware of facts that would have triggered the exception, the Court cannot hold that he is entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the complaint does not plausibly allege a constitutional violation.

Estrada v. Nehls · filed 2022-06-13

Because Estrada has not stated a facially plausible claim of a constitutional violation, he has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that Sheriff Nehls is entitled to qualified immunity on Estrada’s various civil rights claims.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 excessive-force claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Wade v. Daniels · filed 2022-06-13

Given these material differences, Mercado did not clearly establish that an officer uses excessive force by shooting a suicidal individual who is holding a gun. Daniels is thus entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s excessive force claim against him.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 retaliation claim when a reasonable officer would have known their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Civil Rights Corps. v. Cushman · filed 2022-06-13

Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the adverse actions at issue here.

Section 1983 shields an officer from damages for an arrest when a reasonable officer could believe the arrest was lawful.

Freeman v. Ellis · filed 2022-06-13

The Court cannot conclude that any reasonable officer in these circumstances would conclude that arresting Ms. Freeman would be a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore, given the facts of this case, “a rational jury could not find that the officer’[s] judgment was so flawed that no reasonable officer would have made a similar choice.” Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 424-25 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis omitted). Therefore, Sergeant Bender is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants may be denied qualified immunity for delays in a prisoner’s medical care when the right was clearly established.

(PC) Sharpe v. Sherman · filed 2021-11-08

Although defendants’ objection in this regard is well taken, the undersigned notes that those recent cases were not the only cases relied upon by the findings and recommendations, and indeed as noted above, the findings and recommendations also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision from many decades ago in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). (Doc. No. 71 at 25.) Thus, defendants’ objection does not render the pending findings and recommendations as to defendants’ qualified immunity arguments improper or incorrect.

A prison dentist may not invoke qualified immunity against a Section 1983 claim when the alleged denial of needed dental care would violate a clearly established right.

Cannata v. Hoag · filed 2022-06-14

This Court therefore agrees with the R&R’s finding that Hoag may not invoke qualified immunity.