42 U.S.C. § 1983

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established in the specific circumstances.

Gene Bell, Jr. v. City of Southfield, Mich. · filed 2022-06-14

But because Bell hasn’t shown his alleged right to not be tased was clearly established under the specific circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand for the district court to dismiss that issue based on qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against an officer fail on qualified immunity grounds when the plaintiffs cannot show a constitutional violation.

Lawrence v. Ringgold · filed 2022-06-14

Detective Ringgold is entitled to qualified immunity on all the Lawrences’ claims against him because the Lawrences have not shown that he committed any constitutional violation.

Qualified immunity protects a government official from § 1983 liability when the plaintiff cannot establish a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Smart v. Sowle · filed 2022-06-14

As a matter of law, Smart has failed to demonstrate that Sowle deprived him of a constitutional or statutory right. As such, and as an alternative basis for granting his motion, I find that Sowle is entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 claim can survive dismissal on qualified immunity grounds when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of a clearly established right.

Stout v. Ofc. Barrow · filed 2022-06-15

The Court declines to dismiss these claims at this early stage based on qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 excessive force claims when their use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Frank v. City of Lake Charles · filed 2022-06-15

Accordingly, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on any excessive force claims raised against them.

Public officials have qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the asserted right was not clearly established in the circumstances they faced.

Hovick v. Patterson · filed 2022-06-16

We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity.

When an officer asserts qualified immunity against a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a constitutional violation and that the law was clearly established.

Wilson v. McKinney · filed 2022-06-16

Because Officer McKinney asserted in his summary judgment motion that he was entitled to qualified immunity, Mr. Wilson bore the “burden to prove (1) the defendant violated his constitutional rights; and (2) the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Soza, 13 F.4th at 1099.

In a § 1983 damages suit, an officer has qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Salazar v. Molina · filed 2022-06-16

Qualified immunity allows law enforcement officers to avoid personal liability and the burdens of defending suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right. ... Salazar cannot meet that burden, so Molina is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 claim when the facts show that he compelled a resident to comply with his orders and clearly established law treated that conduct as a Fourth Amendment seizure.

Hopkins v. Nichols · filed 2022-06-16

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields them from personal liability under § 1983, unless they “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” ... These cases clearly establish that forced compliance with orders is a Fourth Amendment seizure. ... For those reasons, we conclude that the district court properly denied qualified immunity to defendants for the alleged seizure of Mrs. Hopkins.

An officer cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity in a § 1983 retaliation claim when a jury could find that he threatened punishment for seeking to file a grievance and the right was clearly established.

Burghardt v. Franz · filed 2022-06-16

The dispute for this motion is at prong one—whether Officer Franz’s statement amounted to a threat of retaliation such that he violated Burghardt’s First Amendment rights. ... A jury must resolve whether Officer Franz made those statements and whether such statements were reasonably interpreted as threats of harm in retaliation for seeking to file a grievance.

An officer has qualified immunity from a § 1983 false-arrest claim when the facts known to the officer establish arguable probable cause.

DuBois v. Cunningham · filed 2022-06-17

Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that it was unreasonable for Officer Cunningham to rely on Inspector Chow’s statements. We therefore conclude that Officer Cunningham is entitled to qualified immunity as to the false-arrest claims.

In a § 1983 suit, a court must decide a public official’s qualified immunity defense when it is raised in a motion to dismiss.

Carswell v. Camp · filed 2022-06-17

Where public officials assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, a district court must rule on the immunity question at that stage.

Qualified immunity in a Section 1983 suit requires an analysis of clearly established rights that accounts for the court’s findings on the merits.

Coleman v. Sergeant Jones · filed 2022-06-17

Because the district court’s qualified immunity analysis appears to be incomplete and fails to account for its findings on the merits, we vacate and remand for further consideration.

Qualified immunity defeats a § 1983 claim against an officer who had arguable probable cause for an arrest.

Garner v. Green · filed 2022-06-17

Officer Gamble is entitled to qualified immunity. And Garner’s § 1983 claims, and her parallel ACRA claims, therefore fail.

Qualified immunity does not shield an official from a § 1983 claim when a reasonable official in her position would understand that her conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Penate v. Kaczmarek · filed 2022-06-17

For these reasons, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.

Section 1983 permits qualified immunity for individual government officials when the right allegedly violated was not clearly established.

Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University · filed 2022-06-17

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the right to be free from First Amendment retaliation based upon these facts was not clearly established, and the individual defendants are alternatively entitled to qualified immunity for claims against them in their individual capacity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that they violated a constitutional right.

Grady v. Smith · filed 2022-06-21

Because the Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that the Defendants violated a constitutional right, the Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects a public official from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Raddle v. Kaminski · filed 2022-06-22

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity under the clearly established prong of the two-part test.

An officer lacks qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim arising from an involuntary mental health commitment when he lacked arguable probable cause for the commitment.

Khoury v. The Miami-Dade County School Board · filed 2022-06-22

Accordingly, as a matter of law, Officer Williams did not have arguable probable cause to involuntarily commit Ms. Khoury. By consequence, he is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Baker v. Reid · filed 2022-06-22

The Defendant is also entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials sued personally under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no constitutional right.

Jacobs v. COUNTY OF BUCKS · filed 2022-06-22

Khan and McKevitt are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when factual disputes remain about whether the official violated clearly established law.

Morales v. New Orleans City · filed 2022-06-23

Without further factual development, the Court cannot determine at this stage whether Michel is entitled to qualified immunity.

A prison supervisor sued under § 1983 may be denied qualified immunity when his conduct is obviously unlawful, even without a factually similar precedent.

Curry v. Gonzales · filed 2022-06-24

The Court finds though, that given the allegations regarding Gonzales’s direction to Curry to write a statement denying the misconduct, together with his failure to investigate in the face of allegations of sexual misconduct, this is one of the rare cases where conduct is “so obviously unlawful” that qualified immunity is not warranted.

Qualified immunity does not require dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the alleged conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

David v. Kaulukukui · filed 2022-06-27

Because we conclude that David and her daughter’s constitutional right to familial association was clearly established such that a reasonable official in Kaulukukui’s shoes would have understood that her alleged actions were a constitutional violation, we affirm the district court’s denial of Kaulukukui’s motion to dismiss.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects nonmedical prison officers who reasonably follow a medical provider’s directions.

Jones v. Haire · filed 2022-06-27

The Defendants, not being health care workers, however, made the reasonable judgment to follow Haire’s directives. That is precisely the sort of reasonable judgment that is protected by qualified immunity.

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

Williams v. Jones · filed 2022-06-27

Because Williams failed to establish a First Amendment violation, Defendant Jones is entitled to qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 suit, a denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment may be vacated and remanded when the district court does not identify the record facts supporting its ruling.

Traweek v. LeBlanc · filed 2022-06-28

Given the lack of findings drawn from the summary judgment record to support the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, we decline to embark on our own analysis of the record to divine the merits of the district court’s ruling.

Disputed facts about an officer’s need to use force can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 claim.

Baptiste v. Griffin · filed 2022-06-28

However, as discussed above, there are material issues of fact regarding Defendant’s need to “quash a disturbance” at the time the chemical agent was released. These issues of fact preclude summary judgment.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when factual disputes prevent a finding of arguable probable cause for the arrest.

Lambert v. Herrington · filed 2022-06-29

Because of these factual disputes, neither qualified immunity nor the related state-law immunity doctrines are an appropriate basis for summary judgment in this case.

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

Lombardo v. City of St. Louis · filed 2022-06-29

Because the right at issue was not clearly established, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Fusion Learning, Inc. v. Andover School Committee · filed 2022-06-29

There is no clear caselaw in the First Circuit or Supreme Court that erroneously denying an application for failure to meet the state mandates, without more, would violate the clearly established First Amendment rights of the applicant. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the claims against them are dismissed.

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

Finnegan v. Berben · filed 2022-06-29

Thus, because Plaintiff had a clearly established right to be free from prolonged stops and suspicionless frisks, Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action.

An officer sued for damages under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Seidner v. De Vries · filed 2022-06-30

Qualified immunity shields a police officer from civil damages under Section 1983 “unless the officer[] violated a clearly established constitutional right.” ... However de Vries’s use of force in creating a roadblock is quantified, the law as it existed at the time of the incident did not clearly establish that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

In a § 1983 damages suit, officials acting within their discretionary authority have qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr. v. Burnside · filed 2022-06-30

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials may not be held liable for damages under § 1983 unless it is shown that they violated “a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Echols v. Lawton, 913 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). ... Even if the prison’s policies were improper, the prison officials would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts determine whether the defendant complied with measures to protect inmates from infectious disease.

Nazario v. Thibeault · filed 2022-06-30

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff and finds that the qualified immunity analysis turns on disputed facts. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Defendant complied with the preventive measures in place at Osborn, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the evidence, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, shows objectively unreasonable conduct under clearly established law.

McDaniel v. Williams · filed 2022-06-30

Finally, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

An investigator sued under Section 1983 has qualified immunity for allegedly retaliatory investigative acts when the right was not clearly established.

J.T.H. v. Spring Cook · filed 2022-07-01

Cook is entitled to qualified immunity for both investigative acts.

An officer sued under § 1983 for malicious prosecution is immune when a reasonable mistake of law in seeking an arrest warrant means no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.

Mahone v. Stewart · filed 2022-07-01

Because Officer Stewart’s mistake of law means “there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment in the first place,” see Heien, 574 U.S. at 66, he enjoys immunity from suit.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity when a genuine factual dispute remains over conduct prohibited by clearly established law.

Smith v. Baldwin · filed 2022-07-01

However, in 2018 case law clearly established that subjecting an inmate to a cell covered in feces and other bodily excrement constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Vinning-El, 482 F.3d at 924. Defendants Lashbrook and Brookman are therefore not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense.

A detective is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim based on omitting information from a warrant application when he did not know the information and no clearly established law made the omission unlawful.

Hartman v. Bowles · filed 2022-07-05

Does a detective violate a clearly established constitutional right by omitting information from a warrant application that he does not actually know, even if the reason is his own reckless investigation? The answer is no, which means he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts show no constitutional violation.

Lattimore, Guardian v. City of Southfield · filed 2022-07-05

Thus, the First Responders are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when a jury could find that a prison doctor persisted in treatment known to be ineffective and the unlawfulness of that conduct was clearly established.

Wooten v. Hoftiezer · filed 2022-07-06

In June 2018 the law on the question of whether persisting in a course of treatment known to be ineffective violates the Eighth Amendment had long been settled. See Greeno, 414 F.3d at 655. Thus, Dr. Kelley is not entitled to qualified immunity.

When a defendant raises qualified immunity in a Section 1983 action, the plaintiff must establish both prongs of the defense.

Hunt v. Montano · filed 2022-07-06

When a § 1983 defendant raises qualified immunity, as the employees did in their motion for judgment on the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish both prongs of the defense.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 claim when material facts about officials’ knowledge of a serious risk to a prisoner remain disputed.

Gillispie v. Lawson · filed 2022-07-06

Finally, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show a violation of a clearly established right. ... Defendants put forth two arguments on this point; both of which the Court finds unavailing.

Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 claims when they did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Pearson v. Gittemeier · filed 2022-07-06

Defendants Frank Gittemeier and Charles Peeper are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A § 1983 claim against an officer is barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Usea v. Manuel · filed 2022-07-06

Accordingly, Detective Manuel is entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment is appropriate.

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

Johnson, Dontre v. Foster, Brian · filed 2022-07-07

Given the state of circuit law in 2018 when these strip searches occurred, therefore, plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.

An officer who conceals or misrepresents material facts to a prosecutor can be liable for malicious prosecution under § 1983 and may be denied qualified immunity.

Valenzuela v. Coleman · filed 2022-07-07

Further, it is clearly established that officers “who conceal and misrepresent material facts to the district attorney” are subject to liability for a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution. Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1292. ... Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court therefore denies his motion with respect to his reassertion of qualified immunity.

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

Witzke v. Rieck · filed 2022-07-07

As to Witzke’s Section 1983 claim, the Court finds that Trooper McLean is entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right.

Phillips v. Gordon · filed 2022-07-07

Because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Defendants violated any of his constitutional or statutory rights, he has no viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a Section 1983 claim for retaliation against courtroom testimony when the right to testify without retaliation was clearly established.

O'Toole v. The City of New York · filed 2022-07-07

The Court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it challenges Officer Serrano’s First Amendment retaliation claim arising from his testimony in Floyd on qualified immunity grounds.

Qualified immunity bars an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Williams v. Bob Barker, Inc. · filed 2022-07-08

Even if Williams could establish that his alleged injuries were sufficiently serious and that there is a constitutional right to immediate medical attention for cut and bleeding gums, the court is unaware of any authority suggesting that such right is clearly established to defeat qualified immunity.

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

Lopez v. City of Riverside · filed 2022-07-08

The Court thus finds that Wright is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim alleging unconstitutional interference with an inmate’s right to marry.

(PC) Salas v. Allison · filed 2022-07-08

For the reasons correctly and thoroughly listed in the pending findings and recommendations, unconstitutional interference with an inmate’s right to marry is not protected by qualified immunity.

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

Weeks v. Grady · filed 2022-07-08

Judge Larkins did not err by recommending denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds even though he construed certain facts that support Grady’s version of events.

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

Hampton v. City of St. Louis · filed 2022-07-08

Thus, Nord’s use of force was objectively reasonable, and Hampton has not shown a violation of a constitutional right. Therefore, I need not evaluate whether Nord violated a clearly established right, and she is entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim when the alleged violation was clearly established at the time.

Irizarry v. Yehia · filed 2022-07-11

Thus, as to all three elements of First Amendment retaliation, Mr. Irizarry has shown a violation of clearly established law. Officer Yehia is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity did not entitle the officers to summary judgment on the § 1983 state-created danger claim.

PRICE v. STEINMETZ · filed 2022-07-12

For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 31). ... The Court will focus here primarily on Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity since it necessarily incorporates Plaintiff’s state-created danger claim and since Plaintiff’s wrongful death and survival claims are contingent upon the success of Plaintiff’s state-created danger claim.

Section 1983 shields an officer from damages for excessive force when the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

Perez v. Colombo · filed 2022-07-12

Accordingly, we find that Colombo is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, and summary judgment is properly entered in his favor.

Qualified immunity is a defense to a Section 1983 claim when an officer’s conduct does not violate a clearly established right known to a reasonable person.

Marcum v. Moles · filed 2022-07-15

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to Section 1983 that applies when an officer’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known to a reasonable person” even if the conduct violates Section 1983 by its own terms.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 due process claims when the asserted right is not clearly established.

Allen v. Sater · filed 2022-07-18

Because of this split of authority, I hold that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Allen’s due process claims.

Section 1983 claims challenging a search warrant affidavit must plausibly allege falsehoods, a deliberate or reckless state of mind, and materiality to probable cause to overcome an officer’s qualified immunity.

Nichols v. Johnson · filed 2022-07-18

The Court therefore concludes that the alleged false, ambiguous, or incorrect information contained in the warrant affidavit does not establish a plausible § 1983 claim against the Livonia Police Officer defendants.

Officials sued personally under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established.

Skatemore, Inc. v. Whitmer · filed 2022-07-19

Plaintiffs brought their Fifth Amendment takings claim against Governor Whitmer and Director Gordon under 42 U.S.C § 1983. ... Assuming Plaintiffs alleged an unconstitutional taking, they have failed to show that the alleged constitutional violation was clearly established. ... Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer cannot obtain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when the assumed facts show a violation of a clearly established right.

McWilliams v. Dinapoli · filed 2022-07-19

Under this defense, law-enforcement officers can avoid personal liability when their conduct doesn’t violate a clearly established right. ... Would these factual determinations entail the violation of a clearly established right? We answer yes, concluding that ... Mr. DiNapoli intentionally or recklessly incited Mr. McWilliams.

Qualified immunity bars damages on a Section 1983 claim when the alleged facts do not establish a constitutional violation.

Jenkins v. Jeffries · filed 2022-07-19

Because Mr. Jenkins alleges only that he was fired for having been arrested, and because that status does not rise to the level of a suspect class, the allegations here do not “make out a violation of a constitutional right.” See Van den Bosch, 658 F.3d at 786. This means that Defendants are immune from Mr. Jenkins’ claims.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 arrest claim when the arrest was supported by probable cause.

Bailey v. Iles · filed 2022-07-20

Because Bailey was arrested pursuant to probable cause, Detective Iles is entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on Bailey’s § 1983 claim asserting violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability under § 1983 when the officer’s conduct violates no constitutional right.

Wynn-Thomas v. Dempsey · filed 2022-07-20

Consequently, there was no constitutional violation, and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity without any need to consider whether the rights claimed by Plaintiff were clearly established.

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 damages claims when their conduct does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Angel Thomas, Sr. v. Blocker · filed 2022-07-21

Irrespective of the merits of Appellants’ claims, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. State officials are granted immunity for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim may be denied at the pleadings stage when the allegations do not establish an entitlement to it.

Myers v. City of Centerville, Ohio · filed 2022-07-21

We hold that the district court erred by failing to meaningfully analyze their assertions of immunity at the pleadings stage, but we affirm after concluding that Myers plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim and that the defendants are not yet entitled to qualified or statutory immunity.

In a § 1983 action, individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the law at the time did not clearly establish that their conduct was unconstitutional.

Castrejon v. Jerome County · filed 2022-07-21

Further, as discussed above, based on 8 U.S.C. section 1357(g)(10)(B)’s allowance of cooperation with ICE, and the Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona regarding what constitutes cooperation, reasonable officers in the position of the sheriff and his deputies would not reasonably understand their conduct to be impermissible. Accordingly, even if plaintiff could establish a violation of his constitutional rights, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity on the first claim of plaintiff’s complaint.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the law did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances.

Roberts v. Cruz · filed 2022-07-21

Because none of those circumstances were present in Baker, the right articulated in Baker was not defined at a high enough level of generality to defeat qualified immunity in this case.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when, on the plaintiff’s version of the facts, the officer struck a nonresisting suspect with a pistol in violation of clearly established law.

Brown v. City of Alexandria · filed 2022-07-21

Accordingly, Lt. Rachal is not entitled to qualified immunity and his motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s excessive force claim under § 1983 is denied.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against a prison official when the asserted Eighth Amendment right concerning death row solitary confinement was not clearly established.

WILLIAMS v. WETZEL · filed 2022-07-21

The Third Circuit held that Eighth Amendment rights with respect to conditions of solitary confinement on death row are not “clearly established.” ... Thus, the Court is bound by Porter here. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion with respect to the section 1983 claim against Defendant Wetzel.

A defendant in a Section 1983 excessive-force suit is entitled to qualified immunity when no binding precedent clearly establishes that the force used was unlawful in the circumstances.

Jarvela v. Houk · filed 2022-07-22

And Jarvela has not identified any binding precedent that would have made clear to Houk that any of the force he used before then was unnecessary to ensure Jarvela’s submission. Houk is therefore entitled to judgment on all of Jarvela’s claims against him.

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

ROUND v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-07-22

Further, Officer Madgey is not covered by qualified immunity at this point in the litigation.

An officer may be denied qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim for injurious, excessively tight handcuffs when the officer had reason to know of the person’s distress and faced no highly dangerous or volatile circumstances.

GROSSMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE · filed 2022-07-22

Finally, because it was clearly established at the time that the use of excessively tight handcuffs, where the plaintiff suffers injury and where the officer had some reason to know the plaintiff was in distress and the officer was not confronted by highly dangerous or volatile circumstances, is an objectively unreasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment, Trooper Morningstar is not entitled to qualified immunity, either.

Disputed facts can prevent a court from resolving either prong of qualified immunity on summary judgment in a § 1983 action.

Stoneman v. Bear · filed 2022-07-26

Inasmuch as this purely factual determination is extant, and the Court is required to treat as true Ms. Stoneman’s version of events, neither prong of the qualified immunity inquiry is susceptible to judgment as a matter of law.

An official has qualified immunity from a § 1983 damages claim when the challenged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Miller v. Doe · filed 2022-07-26

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to qualified immu- nity and the court erred in holding otherwise.

Qualified immunity cannot support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when facts material to the alleged violation remain disputed.

Jerger v. Blaize · filed 2022-07-26

Nor is qualified immunity where the par- ties dispute facts material to the consent question.

Section 1983 qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal when the complaint alleges that an officer used a police dog to bite a handcuffed, subdued arrestee in violation of clearly established law.

Jackson v. County of Ulster · filed 2022-07-26

Under the circumstances as alleged in the FAC, a reasonable officer would have known that deploying a police K-9 to bite a handcuffed and subdued arrestee violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, Deputy Caliendo's application for qualified immunity is denied without prejudice, and may be renewed at a later time.

Section 1983 does not allow individual-capacity damages against officials for an alleged due process violation when the asserted right was not clearly established.

Allen v. Waldron · filed 2022-07-27

Accordingly, qualified immunity bars any claim for damages against the defendants in their individual capacities for the alleged due process violations.

State officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established federal right.

Webster v. Westlake · filed 2022-07-27

State officials are entitled to qualified immunity in § 1983 lawsuits unless they violated a federal “statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.” ... The detectives are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest and prosecution supported by arguable probable cause because the asserted rights were not clearly established.

Brown v. Boettigheimer · filed 2022-07-27

Therefore, we find that Officers Boettigheimer and Korte had arguable probable cause to arrest and then initiate prosecution against Brown, meaning that it was not clearly established that doing so would violate Brown’s right to be free from unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution, or First Amendment retaliation. Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Officers Boettigheimer and Korte.

An officer sued under § 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiff’s account shows gratuitous force that violated clearly established law.

Mat S. Baysa v. Redinger · filed 2022-07-27

Here, the district court did not err in denying Redinger’s summary judgment motion because there is a jury question as to the accuracy of Redinger’s versus Baysa’s version of the events prior to the arrest and, accepting Baysa’s version as true, the law was clearly established at the time that the force Redinger used was constitutionally excessive.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from § 1983 damages when the plaintiff cannot show that the officer’s conduct violated clearly established law.

Kabutu v. Short · filed 2022-07-29

Moreover, even if there was a constitutional violation regarding the seizure of the phone, Mr. Kabutu cites no authority clearly establishing it would have been apparent to Detective Chisholm that, despite any constitutional infirmities in the initial warrantless seizure, he violated Mr. Kabutu’s constitutional rights by relying on the later-issued warrant even though it lacked a date, a time, or the issuing judge’s signature.

A school official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when restraining or secluding a student with disabilities substantially departs from accepted professional standards and violates clearly established rights.

Doe v. Guffin · filed 2022-08-01

By its terms, the “substantial departure” standard ensures that only plainly incompetent professionals who forsake accepted judgment, practices, or standards will face liability for the unconstitutional seizure of a disabled student.

Qualified immunity protects officials enforcing a prison policy when the policy has no obvious constitutional defect and their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

Taylor v. Nelson · filed 2022-08-02

But nonpromulgating officials enforcing that policy act reasonably so long as the policy itself does not itself suffer from an “obvious” constitutional defect.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law.

Macias v. Salazar · filed 2022-08-02

Accordingly, the defendants’ conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law. They were thus entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court erred to the extent that it concluded otherwise.

An officer sued under § 1983 for false arrest or malicious prosecution is entitled to qualified immunity when officers of reasonable competence could disagree about whether probable cause existed.

Witt v. Armstrong · filed 2022-08-02

It is even clearer that officers of reasonable competence could at least disagree over whether probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant is protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity for both the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.

Officials sued individually under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to identify clearly established law supporting the asserted right.

Bradley v. Bynum · filed 2022-08-02

But § 1983 claims against officials in their individual capacity are subject to qualified immunity, and both Watkins and Bynum have asserted that defense to some of Bradley’s claims. ... Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity from the procedural-due-process count; their motions are granted as to that claim.

Qualified immunity protects officials from Section 1983 claims when they act within their discretionary authority and the alleged unlawfulness was not clearly established.

Daker v. Warren · filed 2022-08-03

The district court also did not err by dismissing Daker’s claim against mailroom workers based on qualified immunity.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when no clearly established federal right prohibited their conduct under the particular facts.

Pickett v. Boise Police Department · filed 2022-08-03

The Court therefore finds Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because there is no clearly established federal right prohibiting the use of real-time CSLI under the particular facts of this case.

Qualified immunity in a § 1983 excessive force claim cannot be granted before a jury resolves a material dispute about whether the plaintiff was resisting.

Negethon v. Wilkens · filed 2022-08-04

Thus, granting qualified immunity to Wilkens before a jury determines to what extent Negethon was resisting when Wilkens punched and kneed him would be improper.

Jail officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated clearly established law at the time.

Webb v. Johnson · filed 2022-08-04

Even if the constitutionality of that policy might be open to debate, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff has failed to show the law was clearly established in November 2020 that it was unconstitutional for jailers to restrict inmates to their cells for refusing to have their temperatures taken.

Officers sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when material factual disputes prevent the court from deciding whether they violated a clearly established right.

Tobin v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-08-04

Here, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment as to Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Section 1983 permits liability for a constitutional violation when the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Cotten v. Miller · filed 2022-08-05

The undisputed facts show that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiffs’ rights were clearly established at the time of entry. ... As such, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and find that the Officers are liable to Plaintiffs for a violation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Qualified immunity does not shield officials from damages under § 1983 when the right at issue was clearly established at the time they acted.

Clay v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-08-08

Thus, Defendants’ qualified immunity defense fails because Defendants have not shown that the applicable law was not clearly established at the time Defendants acted.

Qualified immunity cannot be granted on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts about the defendant’s conduct prevent the court from deciding whether the defendant violated a clearly established right.

Wilson v. Lackawanna County · filed 2022-08-08

Because the Court has found that there are issues of fact and credibility related to this conduct, the argument supporting the claimed entitlement to qualified immunity is without foundation.

Qualified immunity did not bar the inmate’s § 1983 claim against the correctional officer at summary judgment.

Miller v. Gadson · filed 2022-08-09

The court concurs in the detailed Report and 1The Magistrate Judge also found that Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that Defendant Gadson was not entitled to qualified immunity. ... Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

Section 1983 allows an excessive force claim against an officer to proceed when a jury could find that the officer violated a clearly established right and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Shumate v. City of Adrian, Mich. · filed 2022-08-10

Thus, a reasonable jury could find that Powers violated Shumate’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force. The district court properly denied Powers qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when existing precedent does not clearly establish that the challenged conduct was unlawful.

Ramirez v. Escajeda · filed 2022-08-10

Existing precedent did not put the lawfulness of Escajeda’s actions “beyond debate,” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741, and so his use of a taser under these unique circumstances did not violate clearly established law.

Qualified immunity bars § 1983 damages against an officer when no clearly established right gave notice that the officer’s conduct was unlawful.

Peirick v. Dudek · filed 2022-08-10

Without notice of a known injury to Peirick, Dudek did not violate a clearly established right by refusing to loosen the handcuffs.

Qualified immunity on a Section 1983 claim cannot be granted when factual and credibility disputes leave the defendant’s conduct unresolved.

Rubino v. Lackawann County · filed 2022-08-10

Because the Court has found that there are issues of fact and credibility related to this conduct, the argument supporting the claimed entitlement to qualified immunity is without foundation.

Qualified immunity protects defendants from Section 1983 damages liability when the plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation.

Bordeaux v. Bicknase · filed 2022-08-08

Without evidence of a violation, the defendants are each protected from liability through qualified immunity.

A qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim may be denied at the pleading stage with leave to renew it on a fuller record.

Beathard v. Lyons · filed 2022-08-11

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied to with respect to the issue of qualified immunity, with leave to reassert on a more fully developed record.

Once an official asserts qualified immunity in good faith against a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defense is unavailable.

Dawes v. City of Dallas · filed 2022-08-11

Once a defendant has made a good-faith assertion of the defense of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to identify clearly established law particularized to the facts.

Traylor v. Yorka · filed 2022-08-11

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

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim if no constitutional violation occurred or the right was not clearly established at the time.

Henderson v. McClain · filed 2022-03-09

If either inquiry is answered in the negative, the defendant official is entitled to summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the allegations may establish a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Blackwell v. Corizon Health Care · filed 2022-03-21

In this case, it cannot be said, at this stage of this litigation, that the defendants did not violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or that such rights were not clearly established or known to defendants at the time. As such, these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

A plaintiff must show that an officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim.

Larpenter v. Vera · filed 2022-08-12

Moreover, Mr. Larpenter, as the party with the burden of proof, has not shown that Vera’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established rule of law.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the particular use of force was unlawful at the time.

McDaniel v. Neal · filed 2022-08-15

Thus, neither we nor McDaniel can identify a case or body of case law that clearly established as of August 13, 2017, that Neal’s use of force was excessive, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McDaniel. Given the Supreme Court’s strict instructions on this point, we are compelled to conclude that Neal is entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Hitner v. Reese · filed 2022-08-15

Because Hitner failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A prison doctor sued under Section 1983 is not entitled to qualified immunity for delaying treatment of an inmate’s broken bone when the right to timely treatment was clearly established.

Atwater v. Kuber · filed 2022-08-16

Because it was clear that delaying treatment of an inmate’s broken bone constitutes deliberate indifference to an objectively serious medical need, Dr. Kuber is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 claims when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Narciso v. County of San Diego · filed 2022-08-17

“Public officials are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have ‘violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” ... This Court has found no clearly established law predating November 2018 that would put every reasonable officer on notice that the force used in this scenario constitutes a constitutional violation. Even construing uncertainties in Plaintiff’s favor here, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged conduct violates a clearly established right.

Blunt v. Lindsay · filed 2022-08-18

Thus, Lindsay is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects a public official from liability unless the plaintiff establishes a constitutional violation of a clearly established right.

Fugate v. Erdos · filed 2022-08-18

We dismiss in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirm the denial of qualified immunity. ... Under the test for qualified immunity, a public official is immune from liability unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) a constitutional violation; and (2) that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ when the event occurred such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated it.”

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when a jury could find facts showing that the officer violated a clearly established right.

Meadows v. City of Walker, Mich. · filed 2022-08-18

But an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts are disputed, but a reasonable jury could find a set of facts that, if proven at trial, would show that an officer’s actions violated a clearly established right.

Qualified immunity protects officers from a Section 1983 claim when their conduct did not violate clearly established law.

Grant v. Wilson · filed 2022-08-18

Grant’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment violations from the unlawful entry of the home and the use of excessive force. As the district court concluded, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful entry and search claim, but they are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim based on the lack of violation of clearly established law.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that the constitutional right was clearly established or that the violation was so egregious that no reasonable officer could have thought the conduct lawful.

Esker v. Lutz · filed 2022-08-18

Determining that there was a constitutional violation is not the end of the § 1983 analysis. A plaintiff must also establish that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the encounter, see Sheehan, 575 U.S. at 611, or that the violation was so egregious that “no reasonable officer could have thought he was acting lawfully,” see Dockery v. Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458, 467 (7th Cir. 2018).

Section 1983 damages claims against government officials are barred by qualified immunity when the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

B & L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom · filed 2022-08-18

The absence of such authority means the rights in question here were not clearly established when Newsom, Ross, and Bonta took actions related to AB 893. Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages.

Qualified immunity under § 1983 protects police officers unless they violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

Flowers v. Renfro · filed 2022-08-19

Each of the factual disputes above is material and critical to the question of qualified immunity. That is because quali- fied immunity under § 1983 extends to police officers unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was “clearly estab- lished” at the time.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of a clearly established right.

Grissom v. Palm · filed 2022-08-19

Because Mr. Grissom has failed to show a violation of a right that was clearly established, Officers Palm and Loewen are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff cannot overcome qualified immunity without showing that the official violated a right clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Rogers v. Hall · filed 2022-08-19

As a result, he fails to show a violation of any “right [that] was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct,” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 735 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818), and he therefore cannot overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

In a § 1983 qualified-immunity analysis, the court must identify the applicable law and thoroughly analyze whether it clearly established that the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

(PC) Wesson v. Linde · filed 2022-08-19

Specifically, the burden is on the court to identify the applicable law and engage in a thoroughgoing analysis in reaching its findings.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 false arrest claim when they had arguable probable cause to arrest.

Marsh v. The City of New York · filed 2022-08-19

However, upon reconsideration, this Court finds that Defendants had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff based on the subset of facts which no reasonable jury could resolve in Plaintiff’s favor. Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s false arrest claim.

An official acting within his discretionary authority may claim qualified immunity from a Section 1983 suit, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show that immunity is unavailable.

Richmond v. Badia · filed 2022-08-22

Here, Badia was acting within his discretionary authority at the time of the alleged wrongful acts.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the facts, viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, show a violation of a clearly established right to a probable-cause determination based on reasonably trustworthy information.

Nash v. Folsom · filed 2022-08-22

The Court further finds said right was clearly established at the time of the offending conduct, and so Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment on Count I of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint must be denied.

New evidence that does not overcome qualified immunity does not justify reinstating a § 1983 claim against individual officials.

CASPER v. COOPER · filed 2022-08-22

Even assuming the court should consider such evidence at this stage, the Individual Defendants correctly point out that the information “does not establish an intent to harm the plaintiffs by any Individual Defendant[]; nor does it overcome qualified immunity.”

Qualified immunity protects officials from § 1983 liability when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Webb v. Streeter · filed 2022-08-22

Defendants therefore are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 retaliation claim against an officer who threatens an inmate for filing grievances when the right is clearly established.

Festa v. NDOC · filed 2022-08-22

Gordon therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity for this claim.

A § 1983 defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s evidence raises a genuine factual dispute about objective reasonableness.

Rodriguez v. The City Of New York · filed 2022-08-22

The Court finds that Plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on objective reasonableness, thereby defeating Defendant Gonzalez’s motion for qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when every reasonable official would have understood that their actions violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Hayes v. Nettles · filed 2022-08-23

Moreover, defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Hayes, it would have been clear to every reasonable official that defendants’ actions violated Hayes’s constitutional rights.

A prison official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when it was not clear to every reasonable official that the challenged policy violated established law.

Mouser v. Ryan · filed 2022-08-23

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mouser’s as-applied challenge to the delay in receiving the publications, on the basis of qualified immunity, because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official that enacting a policy that established a review process that may delay receipt of publications would violate clearly established law.

Section 1983 damages claims against individual officials are barred by qualified immunity when the right at issue was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Filler v. Dwello · filed 2022-08-23

Thus, all of the named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the Fillers cannot show the rights at issue were clearly established at the time Defendants placed the Fillers on the Central Registry.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 excessive force claim when a jury could find that an officer violated a clearly established right by using unreasonable deadly force.

Washington v. Wichita, Kansas, City of · filed 2022-08-23

The court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Officer Kreifels unreasonably used deadly force against plaintiff, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Because those rights were clearly established at the time Officer Kreifels shot plaintiff, Officer Kreifels isn’t entitled to qualified immunity. Given that conclusion—and the triable issues in this case—the court denies summary judgment against plaintiff’s § 1983 claims (Counts II, III, IV) and state law battery claim (Count V).

Section 1983 claims may proceed past a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity when the complaint plausibly alleges a violation of clearly established rights.

Long v. City of Concord · filed 2022-08-23

The constitutional rights Long asserts were clearly established-when the events giving rise to Long’s claims occurred. And, Long plausibly alleges his section 1983 claims against Lea, ‘Watters, and Starling. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice defendants’ motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 false arrest claim when existing law did not clearly establish that the arrest was unlawful under the specific circumstances.

Henley v. Payne · filed 2022-08-25

We agree with the district court that Deputy Payne is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects public officials sued individually for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Garcia v. Orta · filed 2022-08-25

Qualified immunity protects public officials acting in their individual capacity from lawsuits and liability for damages under Section 1983 unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the governing right was clearly established and the evidence presents a genuine dispute for trial.

Carranza v. Pool · filed 2022-08-25

Defendant Pool is not entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim for which Plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute of fact for trial.

A defendant in a Section 1983 action is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right.

Harding v. Schetter · filed 2022-08-25

Because Plaintiff has failed to forecast sufficient evidence that Defendant’s conduct violated any constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officials are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

Kathleen Wright Croft v. Township of Donegal · filed 2022-08-26

We conclude that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that Appellant Ms. Croft failed to articulate a clearly established constitutional right, and we will therefore affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Appellants’ claims.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the asserted right was clearly established.

Holm v. Sassenhagen · filed 2022-08-26

On January 14, Holm brought this pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Martinez, Ruiz, and Sassenhagen, in their individual capacities. ... However, we need not determine whether the officers’ use of force to effect a takedown and restraint on the ground was objectively unreasonable because the asserted right against that use of force was not clearly established. ... We therefore agree with the district court that Holm has not met his burden to rebut the officers’ invocations of qualified immunity.

An official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a genuine factual dispute remains over conduct that would violate a clearly established right.

Spahr v. Collins · filed 2022-08-26

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, as the Court must, the Court concludes that Defendant Collins is not entitled to qualified immunity because there is a genuine issue as to whether she coerced Spahr to sign the Child Safety Agreement.

Correctional officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff’s account shows that they used force without a good-faith disciplinary purpose.

Ralston v. Rauner · filed 2022-08-26

As explained previously, the facts taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force make out a violation of his constitutional rights in that the force used against him when Defendants slammed his head into the ground was not applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity as to the excessive force claim.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when their determination that probable cause existed was reasonable.

Henderson v. Rangel · filed 2022-08-26

But even short of that, their determination was undoubtedly reasonable, such that both are entitled to qualified immunity.

An officer sued individually under § 1983 for excessive force is not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when the plaintiffs’ supported account shows a violation of clearly established law.

Campbell v. Cheatham County Sheriff's Dep't · filed 2022-08-29

The Campbells sued Fox in his individual capacity for excessive use of force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Therefore, Fox is not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.

Section 1983 qualified immunity protects an officer when the plaintiff fails to allege a constitutional violation or the asserted right was not clearly established at the time.

Laviage v. Fite · filed 2022-08-29

For either of the foregoing reasons, Fite was entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 damages claims against individual officers and supervisors are barred by qualified immunity when their conduct violates no clearly established right.

Doscher v. Timberland Regional Library · filed 2022-08-30

Defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity from damages for civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... Therefore, qualified immunity bars Doscher’s claims against all individual police officers and supervisors.

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

Dorsey v. Randolph · filed 2022-08-30

Inasmuch as Dorsey has failed to satisfy the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, Corporal Randolph is entitled to qualified immunity and the court need not answer whether Dorsey’s Eighth Amendment right was clearly established.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time.

Manriquez v. Ensley · filed 2022-08-30

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014) (internal quotation omitted). Here, Officer Lawrence’s and Officer Ensley’s conduct violated a Fourth Amendment right that was not clearly established at the time of the violation. We thus hold that the district court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity.