42 U.S.C. § 1983

A police officer can be denied qualified immunity in a § 1983 action.

Ledbetter v. Helmers · filed 2022-08-31

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court appropriately denied Helmers qualified immunity.

Section 1983 shields officers from liability for an arrest when qualified immunity applies, even if the arrest may have rested on a mistake of law.

Vanegas v. City of Pasadena · filed 2022-08-31

Thus, even if Vanegas’s failure to identify himself did not provide probable cause to arrest under § 148(a)(1)—a question we need not and do not decide—Officer Klotz had “breathing room” to make the purported mistake of law and he and the other officers are entitled to qualified immunity for Vanegas’s arrest.

In a § 1983 suit, genuine disputes of material fact about whether an officer violated constitutional rights can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.

Baker v. Garner · filed 2022-08-31

The Court overrules Garner’s objection and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that due to genuine issues of material fact as to whether Garner violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, summary judgment is denied as to Garner’s claim for qualified immunity.

An officer sued under § 1983 for false arrest has qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could believe probable cause existed.

Jackson v. Cowan · filed 2022-09-01

Even considering the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Jackson—as we must at the summary judgment stage—the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. As we explain, the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Mr. Jackson for simple battery.

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

Payne v. Swift · filed 2022-09-01

Considering the totality of circumstances in the light most favorable to Swift, we conclude that Payne’s use of Fero did not constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and that Payne was entitled to qualified official immunity. For this reason, the circuit court erred by failing to grant summary judgment dismissing Swift’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or an infringement of a clearly established right.

LOWERY v. BURSE · filed 2022-09-01

Here, Lowery tried, but failed, to produce evidence of a constitutional violation, and he makes no effort to show Burse’s conduct was an intrusion on a “clearly established” right. Thus, qualified immunity serves an alternative basis for dismissal.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when the right they violated was clearly established.

Gagliani v. Sheriff of Lexington County for Lexington County Sheriff's Department · filed 2022-09-01

The court finds Decedent had a clearly established constitutional right to be free of the seizure and force exerted against him by the individual Defendants, such that qualified immunity is not available to Defendants Kinder, Wilkes, and Markey.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 damages claim against an official when the plaintiff fails to show that the official violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Johnson v. Kariko · filed 2022-09-02

The Court agrees that each defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and Johnson has failed to identify any factual issue that must be resolved before the qualified immunity issue can be determined. This is an additional basis for granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion on Johnson’s § 1983 claims against them.

Qualified immunity does not support dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the right was clearly established and the alleged facts leave a constitutional violation unresolved.

Smith v. Wheat · filed 2022-09-02

Here, as stated above, it is unquestioned that Jeffrey had a clearly established constitutional right given the Supreme Court’s recognition that prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 833. The question is whether the circumstances of this matter in fact point to a constitutional violation, and as stated above that is not a determination the Court can now make.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a § 1983 claim when the complaint alleges conduct that violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Tanner v. Campbell · filed 2022-09-02

As discussed above and in Judge Neureiter’s Recommendation, Plaintiff has alleged facts to show that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right to timely treatment of a serious medical condition, and that such right was clearly established in this circuit.

Qualified immunity requires asking whether clearly established law would have told a reasonable defendant that the specific conduct was unlawful.

(PC) Hardney v. Warren · filed 2022-09-06

Constitutional violation notwithstanding, the qualified immunity analysis must inquire into whether a reasonable defendant would have known that the specific actions in this case were unlawful based on the “clearly established law.”

Section 1983 claims against prison officials can survive qualified immunity when clearly established law required them to take reasonable steps to protect an inmate from a known risk of violence.

Chavez v. New Mexico Corrections Department · filed 2022-09-06

The Court finds that the law was clearly established with regard to deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety from violence at the hands of other prisoners, such that ... every reasonable official would have understood that keeping an inmate in an unsafe housing assignment, in this specific context, violates that right. ... Therefore, summary judgment would not be appropriate on any of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims.

Jail officials are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when clearly established law warns that ignoring a detainee’s obvious and serious medical needs violates constitutional rights.

Paugh v. Uintah County · filed 2022-09-07

His estate sued Uintah County and several of its jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Paugh’s constitutional rights. ... We hold that the Individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

(PC) Shanks v. Mendez · filed 2022-09-07

The assigned magistrate judge found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, “because an inmate’s right to refuse to provide information relating to a prison investigation was not clearly established in 2018 (and is not today), [and] no reasonable prison official would have been on notice that their conduct violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.” ... Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: ... The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 9, 2022 (Doc. 56) are ADOPTED in full.

Qualified immunity shields an official from an individual-capacity § 1983 claim when the alleged constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

DIAMOND v. SMITH · filed 2022-09-07

Even if Smith’s conduct was violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, the unconstitutionality of Smith’s conduct was not “clearly established” at the time the conduct occurred. Accordingly, Smith’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds (Doc. 126) is GRANTED.

Private hospital police officers who work independently of government direction and supervision and whose employer faces market pressure are not entitled to qualified immunity against § 1983 claims.

PENDLETON v. MURPHY · filed 2022-09-07

Here, the relevant factors do not support finding that the IU Health officers may assert qualified immunity.

Disputed facts about whether a plaintiff threatened an officer or resisted arrest can preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity in a Section 1983 excessive force claim.

Davis v. Pavlik, Jr · filed 2022-09-07

As discussed above, there are material facts in dispute in this case about whether plaintiff posed an imminent threat to Officer Estime and whether plaintiff resisted arrest that are needed to determine whether Officer Estime violated plaintiff’s constitutional right. And so, the Court must also DENY Officer Estime’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

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

Givens v. Moore · filed 2022-09-07

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.

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

Stroud v. Tapp · filed 2022-09-07

Because the Plaintiff has not presented a forecast of evidence that Defendants Tapp and Stidham violated a constitutional right, the Court grants them summary judgment on this ground as well.

A defendant has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the asserted right was not clearly established; a split in authority can show that it was not.

McKeever v. Nassau County · filed 2022-09-07

There is a split of authority as to whether violations of state extradition laws can give rise to constitutional claims, which leads the Court to conclude that “it cannot be argued that the [D]efendants violated a ‘clearly established’ right,” nor that “it was objectively unreasonable for the [D]efendants to act as they did without knowing that they were violating [Plaintiff’s] constitutional rights.” ... Accordingly, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and 1985 claims against Singas, Guerrier, Kalaydijan, Murack, Carroll, Martin, and the PA/DA Defendants must be dismissed.

Section 1983 damages claims against public officials are subject to qualified immunity when plaintiffs cannot show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ollar v. District of Columbia · filed 2022-09-08

Public officials — like Defendants Beander, Nix, and Reddrick — are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims under Section 1983. ... Thus, the District Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects a public official from damages under Section 1983 when the official’s conduct does not violate a constitutional right.

Williams v. Rurka · filed 2022-09-08

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense” to a § 1983 claim. ... Because Defendant acted reasonably, Defendant did not commit a constitutional violation. The Court will therefore grant qualified immunity to Defendant.

Qualified immunity does not justify summary judgment on a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the defendant fails to establish entitlement to it and malicious force would violate clearly established Eighth Amendment law.

Ramirez v. Gittere · filed 2022-09-08

Here, Judge Denney recommends denying Montes’ Motion because his proffered evidence does not establish he is entitled to summary judgment—or qualified immunity, because, “it was clearly established that using force maliciously for the purpose of causing harm violates the Eighth Amendment.” (ECF No. 37 at 6-7.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney.

Qualified immunity shields officers from Section 1983 false-arrest liability when they had arguable probable cause to make the arrest.

Donohue v. Marsh · filed 2022-09-08

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Section 1983 false-arrest claim because arguable probable cause existed to believe that plaintiff both obstructed governmental administration in violation of New York Penal Law § 195.05 and committed a criminal trespass in violation of New York Penal Law § 140.05.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established law.

Johnson v. Harris County · filed 2022-09-09

Mr. Johnson fails to show factual disputes material to whether Officer Johnson violated clearly established law, and Mr. Johnson’s unsupported assertions that the push was unnecessary and constitutionally excessive are insufficient. Officer Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity, and Mr. Johnson’s excessive force claim against him is dismissed, with prejudice.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when the alleged unlawfulness of the force was not clearly established at the time.

Santana v. McDonough County · filed 2022-09-09

Accordingly, Murfin is entitled to qualified immunity on Santana’s excessive force claim.

Section 1983 does not allow damages against officials protected by qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Larson v. Carpenter · filed 2022-09-09

However, even under the line of cases recognizing this clearly established due process right, plaintiff cannot evade qualified immunity.

Government officials sued for damages under § 1983 in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity when the complaint alleges no viable constitutional violation.

Bush v. Fantasia · filed 2022-09-12

Because the complaint fails to allege any viable constitutional claims, the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A § 1983 plaintiff can overcome an official’s qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage by alleging conduct that violated clearly established law and was not objectively reasonable.

Stasher v. City of Jackson, Mississippi · filed 2022-09-13

Accepting Plaintiff’s averments as true, for purposes of this motion, her claim meets the standard needed to overcome Davis’ qualified immunity defense. This court is unwilling to dismiss Defendant Davis in his individual capacity at this stage of this litigation.

Officers sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish that they violated clearly established constitutional rights.

Partain v. Hallmark · filed 2022-09-14

Accordingly, both Defendants Hallmark and Melero are protected by qualified immunity and are entitled to summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 search claim at the pleading stage when the complaint does not establish arguable reasonable suspicion for an investigatory frisk.

Scott v. City of Miami · filed 2022-09-15

Here, Officers Williams and Hernandez are not entitled to qualified immunity based on arguable reasonable suspicion for two reasons.

Qualified immunity does not shield a defendant from a § 1983 claim when precedent clearly established that the alleged conduct violated a constitutional right.

Gross v. Cairo · filed 2022-09-15

Finding no compelling factual distinctions between El and the complaint’s allegations, the court therefore concludes that the same precedents that clearly established the El plaintiff’s rights in 2013 also provided notice to Cairo in 2020 that punching Gross under these circumstances constituted unlawfully excessive force. Accordingly, Cairo is not entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture.

In a § 1983 excessive force claim, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent clearly establishes that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional in the specific circumstances.

Lewis v. City of Edmond · filed 2022-09-16

Claims of excessive force turn “very much on the facts of each case,” and a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless existing prior precedent “squarely governs” the specific facts at issue.

Officials sued under Section 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct did not violate the plaintiff’s federal rights.

Bollfrass v. Phoenix, City of · filed 2022-09-16

Regarding the other prong of the test for qualified immunity, however, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there are no disputed issues of material fact where a reasonable juror could find that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as discussed at length in Parts IV.C and IV.D, supra. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200–01. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 failure-to-intervene claim when the plaintiff fails to show that clearly established law required intervention in the alleged circumstances.

Bent v. Wilson · filed 2022-09-16

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. Thus, Wilson is entitled to qualified immunity, and Count IV will be dismissed accordingly.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 false arrest claim if the officer had at least arguable probable cause to arrest.

Bezzaz v. Moore · filed 2022-09-16

Because Defendants had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Bezzaz, they enjoy qualified immunity on her false arrest claims.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity when they knowingly fail to respond to a serious medical need protected by clearly established law.

Smith v. McGee · filed 2022-09-16

Given the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the Defendants are not eligible for qualified immunity.

An officer receives qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim unless the plaintiff establishes both a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.

Crowe v. Steward · filed 2022-09-16

An officer receives qualified immunity unless the plaintiff establishes: (1) the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was “clearly established.”

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that sufficiently specific law clearly established the right at issue.

Johnson v. Sootsman · filed 2022-09-19

Plaintiff’s conclusory statement fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s alternative recommendation that Defendant Sootsman is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 claim against individual officials when the plaintiff cannot show a constitutional violation.

Moore v. Johnson · filed 2022-09-19

Mr. Moore has made no showing that would allow a reasonable juror to find that the alleged constitutional violations occurred during his arrest and brief detention, and so the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim when they had an objectively reasonable basis to believe probable cause supported the arrest.

Barney v. Suggs · filed 2022-09-20

The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on Burney’s § 1983 false arrest claim, and the Court will grant summary judgment in their favor.

A good faith assertion of qualified immunity shifts the summary judgment burden to the plaintiff to show that the defense is unavailable in a Section 1983 claim.

Cargill v. CMC Pharmacy · filed 2022-09-21

A good faith assertion of qualified immunity alters the usual summary judgment burden of proof, shifting it to the plaintiff to show that the defense is not available. ... Plaintiff did not contest the defendants’ claims of entitlement to qualified immunity, and has not met his burden of proof to rebut their claims.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right.

Clinton v. Garrett · filed 2022-09-21

For these reasons, the officers’ stop of Clinton’s vehicle constituted a violation of his clearly established rights. Hence, the district court did not err in concluding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can entitle an officer to summary judgment on a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim even without probable cause.

Liu v. Tangney · filed 2022-09-21

Finally, the court agrees with Judge Vatti’s conclusion that even in the absence of probable cause, Officer Tangney is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officers in their individual capacities are barred by qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to establish a constitutional violation.

Hall v. Ingle · filed 2022-09-22

Plaintiffs claims for use of excessive force against the defendants in their individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by qualified immunity.

Officers may be denied qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim when disputed facts prevent a court from finding reasonable suspicion for a stop as a matter of law.

Totton v. City of Sacramento · filed 2022-09-22

Because reasonable minds could differ as to whether minor Plaintiffs matched the description of the burglary suspects, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop. As such, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Individual defendants in § 1983 actions are entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct violates no constitutional right or the asserted right was not clearly established.

Watkins v. Douglas County, Colorado · filed 2022-09-22

Qualified immunity shields individual defendants named in § 1983 actions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... In the absence of a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim as well.

Municipal officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when their public comments do not violate clearly established First Amendment rights.

Fountain v. City of Methuen · filed 2022-09-22

Because the Court finds that absolute or qualified immunity applies to all of the City Council Defendants’ alleged actions in violation of Fountain’s First Amendment rights, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, the Court grants the defendants’ motion for judgment as to Counts II-VII.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from liability under Section 1983 when the evidence does not show that the officer violated a constitutional right.

Lewis v. Dzurenda · filed 2022-09-22

C/O Mesa is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no evidence indicating that he violated Lewis’ First Amendment rights.

Section 1983 officers are entitled to qualified immunity when reasonable officers could disagree about whether their use of force was excessive.

Vasquez v. Doe(s) · filed 2022-09-22

At the very least, reasonable officers would not agree that Warren, Murray, and Whalen used excessive force, and thus they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield a § 1983 defendant whose alleged conduct violated a clearly established right.

Santiago v. Gilbert · filed 2022-09-23

Finally, Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit case law clearly state that an incarcerated person has a clearly established right not to be knowingly prescribed a medication to which he was allergic. The defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from liability under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate clearly established law.

McKinney v. City of Middletown · filed 2022-09-26

We hold that McKinney has not shown that the defendant officers violated clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known and conclude that the defendant officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

A defendant in a § 1983 action cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed material facts prevent the court from assessing whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable.

Tyson v. Sesay · filed 2022-09-26

Here, the Court cannot measure the reasonableness of Defendant’s actions because “there are facts in dispute that are material to a determination of reasonableness,” rendering summary judgment inappropriate.

Qualified immunity does not warrant summary judgment on a § 1983 excessive force claim when disputed facts could establish that an officer violated a clearly established right.

Holman v. Carey · filed 2022-09-26

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Holman, a reasonable jury could determine that Carey kicked Holman with enough force to chip his tooth while Holman was under control, which would violate Holman’s clearly established rights. The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity bars a Section 1983 damages claim against an officer when the plaintiff cannot show a violation of clearly established law.

Woodard v. Carol · filed 2022-09-26

Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to show that the law allegedly violated was so clearly established; thus, defendant Hall is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a Section 1983 claim when material factual disputes prevent the court from deciding whether officials violated clearly established rights.

Byrd v. Haas · filed 2022-09-26

Defendants’ motivations for denying Plaintiff free exercise of his religion are therefore issues of material fact, and summary judgment is inappropriate on the grounds of qualified immunity as to that claim.

Section 1983 defendants may receive qualified immunity when the facts or law confronting them were unclear.

Suren v. City of New York · filed 2022-09-26

This Court in its de novo review of the record as a whole, most respectfully reaches a different conclusion from Magistrate Judge Reyes on the claims detailed below and determines that to the extent the facts or law before the Officer Defendants were unclear, those circumstances require the application of qualified immunity.

A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity from an individual-capacity § 1983 claim at the pleading stage when the complaint alleges retaliation for protected speech in violation of a clearly established right.

TRENT v. COUNTY OF SOMERSET · filed 2022-09-26

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant Walker is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established law.

Callaway v. Adcock · filed 2022-09-27

Accordingly, Adcock is entitled to qualified immunity on Callaway’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from Section 1983 damages when a reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed for the arrest.

Gunn v. Village of Bolingbrook · filed 2022-09-27

Furthermore, even assuming that “reasonable minds could differ” about whether Plaintiff was committing unlawful resistance or obstruction, then McAuliffe’s actions are protected by qualified immunity.

A § 1983 claim against public officials can survive a qualified immunity defense at the pleading stage when the complaint plausibly alleges that they acted in response to racially discriminatory opposition and the right was clearly established.

Valentin v. Town of Natick · filed 2022-09-27

Public officers are protected by qualified immunity unless “[t]he contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 269 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). ... While there are no allegations that any individual member of the planning board made any racist comments, the Complaint alleges that all the members of the planning board took procedural steps to thwart the project in light of private community opposition based on race. ... The Court will revisit the issue of qualified immunity at summary judgment on a fuller record with respect to each of the town officials’ individual actions.

Qualified immunity shields officials from § 1983 damages unless they violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Onuekwusi v. Graham · filed 2022-09-28

Under § 1983, government officials are shielded from civil damages liability unless the official violated a complainant’s statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct at issue. ... We conclude, therefore, that Graham is not entitled to qualified immunity and the District Court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss.

Qualified immunity does not apply to official capacity claims under § 1983.

Threatt v. Sylacauga Housing Authority · filed 2022-09-28

But qualified immunity does not apply to official capacity claims.

Qualified immunity does not shield an officer from a Section 1983 excessive force claim when clearly established law made the force unreasonable.

Bell v. Akins · filed 2022-09-28

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Bell, it was clearly established at the time of the incident that no reasonable officer could have thought it reasonable to punch Mr. Bell five times in the head and face or to pull him off the tailgate by his handcuffs and kick him when he could not walk on his own, so the court DENIES Deputy Veal’s motion for summary judgment with respect to those uses of force.

Individual defendants in a § 1983 action are entitled to qualified immunity when the asserted right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.

Grissom (ID 33728) v. Bell · filed 2022-09-28

Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show his Eighth Amendment rights with respect to this claim were clearly established and the escorting Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

A public official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a clearly established right.

Anderson v. Vanden Avond · filed 2022-09-28

Mr. Anderson asserts a § 1983 excessive force claim against Officer Vanden Avond in his individual capacity. ... Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit “unless their conduct violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable official would have known.”

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, prevent a finding that their use of force was objectively reasonable.

Linares v. City of Southaven · filed 2022-09-28

Looking at the facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court finds that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Officials sued under § 1983 have qualified immunity when it was not clearly established that enforcing a prison book weight limit violated an inmate’s First Amendment rights.

YAH 'TORAH v. EMRICH · filed 2022-09-28

As such, it was not clearly established at the time Defendants refused Plaintiff his book based on its weight that Defendants were violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment right. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and their Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim regarding the denial of the book “Contracts for the File & Television Industry” by Mark Litwak.

Qualified immunity bars Section 1983 false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims when officers had arguable probable cause to arrest and no intervening facts dissipated it before prosecution.

Jiang v. Corpuz · filed 2022-09-28

Qualified immunity, in turn, shields officers from liability for false arrest under Section 1983 so long as “arguable probable cause” existed “to arrest the plaintiff.” ... The detectives are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims.

Officers sued under Section 1983 cannot obtain summary judgment on qualified immunity when disputed facts could show that they violated clearly established law.

Tillman v. The City of New York · filed 2022-09-28

Under these principles, defendants are not entitled to summary judgment even if the conclusions of plaintiff’s expert are disregarded. Defendants concede that under Callahan and related Second Circuit authority, it was clearly established that officers could not have shot a fleeing Mr. Tillman if he did not have a gun in his hand.

A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim unless his conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Johnston v. Hamilton County Justice Center · filed 2022-09-28

Evers is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct “violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position would have known.”

Officials sued under § 1983 must establish qualified immunity; they cannot obtain summary judgment on that defense when they fail to support it.

Murphy v. Grochowski · filed 2022-09-28

The court concurs with the report’s conclusion and will adopt its findings regarding qualified immunity, (Doc. 153 at 28-30). Therefore, the court will deny the motion for summary judgment of Chulock and Rowlands with respect to the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim against them on the basis of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity can bar § 1983 claims against an individual defendant at summary judgment.

Donalson v. McLeaish · filed 2022-09-28

The Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) on the grounds of qualified immunity (Docket No. 18) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendant McLeaish with prejudice.

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 damages claims when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Livingston v. State Of Texas · filed 2022-09-29

Because Livingston does not show that a constitutional violation occurred, the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Livingston’s claims and summary judgment in their favor.

Qualified immunity does not shield a public official from personal liability under § 1983 for violating a clearly established constitutional right.

Yates v. Davis · filed 2022-09-29

Qualified immunity shields public officials from personal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). ... Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Davis is not entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Harris v. Payne · filed 2022-09-29

Because the Court finds that the right is not clearly established, it must find that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts, viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, could establish a clearly established constitutional violation.

Lees v. CDCR/SVSP-LVN Singsong · filed 2022-09-29

Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on their excessive force claim based on the record currently before the Court.

Individual defendants in § 1983 actions have qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado · filed 2022-09-29

Qualified immunity shields individual defendants named in § 1983 actions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. ... Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their roles in enforcing the original policy.

Individual defendants may receive qualified immunity from a Section 1983 search claim when the complaint’s unclear allegations fail to overcome that defense.

Aguilera-Valdez v. Davenport · filed 2022-09-29

As described below, however, this lack of clarity from the Complaint contributes to the Court’s conclusion that the individually-named Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Claim Two as it is currently pled.

A public official is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when the plaintiff fails to show that the official violated a clearly established federal right.

North Atlantic Security Company v. Blache · filed 2022-09-29

Similarly, Blache is entitled to qualified immunity on North Atlantic’s due process claim related to the cease-and-desist order because North Atlantic has not shown a clearly established federal right that Blache violated by sending the cease-and-desist order.

An officer sued under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional.

Ottley v. City of New York · filed 2022-09-29

Under these circumstances, at minimum, Officer Proietti would be entitled to qualified immunity for that action.

Qualified immunity bars damages against officials in their individual capacities under § 1983 when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Smith v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2022-09-29

In this case, the money damages are not available against the Defendant officials in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as each Defendant has qualified immunity in their individual capacities. As established above, Plaintiff failed to show a violation of his Constitutional rights.

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

Hoglan v. Robinson · filed 2022-09-30

For the reasons set forth below, the court sustains the defendants’ objections in this regard and concludes that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity cannot be resolved at summary judgment in a § 1983 action when material factual disputes bear on the officer’s conduct.

Brown v. Rafferty · filed 2022-09-30

The Court has determined the record contains sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether Defendant’s conduct, assuming the third bite occurred, constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ... Accordingly, the Court cannot find Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

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

Vasquez v. City of San Jose · filed 2022-09-30

Thus even if the Officers’ conduct was excessive their actions would be protected under qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

Officials sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity when the plaintiff cannot show that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established.

Yablonsky v. California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation · filed 2022-09-30

Thus, the librarians have qualified immunity on any claim that they improperly read legal files before copying them.

Qualified immunity protects officials from damages under § 1983 when their conduct does not violate a clearly established right.

Baltas v. Chapdelaine · filed 2022-09-30

I conclude that to the extent any of the plaintiffs may have a viable claim under § 1983, qualified immunity applies.

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

Rahmaan v. McQuilkin · filed 2022-09-30

As Rahmaan failed to demonstrate that McQuilkin violated a clearly established right, McQuilkin is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not shield officers from a Section 1983 claim when, under the circumstances, a reasonable officer would know that showing a witness a single photo is impermissibly suggestive.

Jackson v. City of Detroit · filed 2022-09-30

The Court concludes that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the taking of the single photo and showing it to KR at the scene, which also violates DPD policy. See ECF No. 56, Ex. 12.

Section 1983 defendants have qualified immunity when they lacked notice that enforcing a policy would violate clearly established rights.

Carter 302542 v. Heyns · filed 2022-09-30

Finally, even if Plaintiff had standing to sue under RLUIPA or the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendants would still be entitled to summary judgment. Where government officials act within the scope of their authority do “not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known,” they are entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Here, the MDOC policy clearly stated that it applied to religious groups. (ECF No. 75-2, PageID.548). Plaintiff repeatedly stated he did not view NOGE as a religion. See ECF No. 75-4, 89-2, and ECF No. 75-3, PageID.593. Therefore, Defendants were not on notice that enforcing MDOC policy would be violating anyone’s rights or breaking any law. Therefore, even if Plaintiff had standing, Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment.

A defendant in a Section 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that the allegedly violated right was clearly established.

O'Brien v. Murphy · filed 2022-09-30

O’Brien has not provided any Eighth Circuit precedent, a “consensus of cases of persuasive authority,” or otherwise shown that Robinett’s actions violated with “obvious clarity” the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against the use of excessive force. See Docs. [43], [48]. For this reason, Officer Robinett is entitled to qualified immunity on O’Brien’s Fourth Amendment claim.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when no clearly established law prohibited the officer’s conduct under the circumstances.

Singh v. The City of New York · filed 2022-09-30

As detailed below, Cheema is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim because no clearly established law prohibited the force he applied in the effort to handcuff Singh under the instant circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal of a Section 1983 claim when defendants fail to establish a basis for it.

Cremeans v. Miller · filed 2022-09-30

The Court concurs in Magistrate Judge Dancks’s recommendation that Defendants’ briefing fails to establish a basis for dismissal based on qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not support summary judgment on a § 1983 failure-to-protect claim when disputed facts could show that an officer violated an inmate’s clearly established right to protection from violence.

CROWDER v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2022-09-30

As discussed above, there exists a genuine dispute of material fact on the merits of the plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against O’Hara. Moreover, it is well settled that a prisoner such as Crowder has “a clearly established constitutional right to have prison officials protect him from inmate violence.” ... Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be denied with respect to its assertion of a qualified immunity defense on behalf of defendant O’Hara.

Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim when the evidence permits a finding that they violated an inmate’s clearly established right to be free from unjustified force.

Alexander v. Walls · filed 2022-10-03

And, at the time in question, the unconstitutionality of the use of excessive force in this context was clearly established and should have been known to these two officers and the remaining defendants that observed the altercation. ... Thus, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim against a prison officer when disputed facts could show that he violated a clearly established duty to seek medical attention for an inmate.

Smith v. Pappas · filed 2022-10-03

As previously noted, material issues of fact preclude a finding as a matter of law that Morris did not engage in a constitutional violation. And accepting Smith’s allegations as true, any reasonable officer would know he had a duty to seek medication attention for Smith under the circumstances. See, Orlowski v. Milwaukee Cty., 872 F.3d 417, 422 (7th Cir. 2012). For these reasons, Morris is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against officers are subject to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Watkins v. Blackmon · filed 2022-10-03

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 shields an official from liability under § 1983 when the official’s actions were objectively reasonable, even if they violated a constitutional right.

DeMarco v. Bynum · filed 2022-10-04

Moreover, even if Bynum had violated DeMarco’s constitutional rights, the district court correctly found that Bynum was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions were objectively reasonable.

An officer has qualified immunity from a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim when the plaintiff fails to show a violation of clearly established law or the absence of arguable probable cause.

Potter v. Torres · filed 2022-10-05

Plaintiff has not shown a violation of clearly established law or the lack of arguable probable cause.

Section 1983 does not shield an officer through qualified immunity when no reasonable officer could believe the force used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Rizk v. City of New York · filed 2022-10-05

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court concludes that “no reasonable officer could [have] believe[d],” in these circumstances, that the amount of force Mehirdel used was ... reasonable.

A Section 1983 excessive-force claim may survive a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity when the alleged facts plausibly support the claim.

Brown v. Short · filed 2022-10-05

Under these facts, the Court finds Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an excessive force claim sufficient to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 excessive force claim when the use of force was objectively reasonable.

Hamstead v. D. Walker · filed 2022-10-05

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity from this claim and, in turn, summary judgment.

Qualified immunity can protect a prison officer from a Section 1983 excessive-force claim when a jury reasonably finds that the officer used force in good faith to maintain discipline and safety.

Lowe v. Williams · filed 2022-10-07

Nevertheless, the jury credited Mr. Williams’s testimony and the evidence supporting that pepper spray was deployed in a good faith effort to maintain discipline and protect safety, such that Mr. Williams was entitled to the protection of qualified immunity.

Defendants in a Section 1983 suit are entitled to qualified immunity when the record raises no genuine factual dispute about a constitutional violation.

Villasana v. Newman · filed 2022-10-11

Because there was no factual dispute regarding a constitutional violation, the court did not err in its conclusion that the defendants were entitled to quali- fied immunity.

An official sued for damages under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable official could have believed the challenged conduct was lawful.

Hussey v. City of Cambridge · filed 2022-10-11

A reasonable person in Bard’s position could have believed that he was not violating Hussey’s rights by suspending him for his Facebook post. ... Bard is entitled to qualified immunity here.

Qualified immunity may be available to a defendant in a Section 1983 excessive force claim, even if the defendant used excessive force.

Starmel v. Tompkin · filed 2022-10-11

Plaintiff is incorrect. "It is well settled that a defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity even where he has used excessive force."

In a § 1983 excessive-force suit, qualified immunity does not support summary judgment when disputed facts could show that officers violated clearly established law.

Nettles v. Hurst · filed 2022-10-12

Because there exist genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Sergeant Smitherman and Officer Hurst violated the clearly established law of this circuit in their alleged use of force against Mr. Nettles, qualified immunity is not an appropriate basis for summary judgment.

Qualified immunity does not bar a § 1983 claim when clearly established law prohibited the officers’ alleged use of force.

FORBES v. BOROUGH OF INDIANA · filed 2022-10-12

Under these circumstances, the consensus in the law for some time prior to the incident at issue supports Forbes’ claim that slamming him into a wall, striking him, and grabbing him by the neck after he was secured was an unreasonable use of force. Thus, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless they violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.

Hedrick v. Western Michigan University · filed 2022-10-17

In other words, the individual defendants are “entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Id. (citation omitted).

A defendant seeking qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim must identify the specific right at issue and support the defense with particularized legal and factual arguments.

Knight v. Henrico County Police Department · filed 2022-10-18

Because Defendants have failed to identify the specific right violated or the proper level of particularity of which the right was violated, Defendants have failed to satisfy their obligation with respect to their assertion of qualified immunity.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when disputed facts could establish a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Shiheiber v. Hernandez · filed 2022-10-18

Therefore, Officer Hernandez is not entitled to summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity in this case.

A qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim cannot be resolved on the pleadings when facts developed in discovery could show that officers increased a person's danger and violated a clearly established right.

RAKES v. ROEDERER · filed 2022-10-18

And further, even if the facts bear this out, Ms. Rakes will need to show that Amylyn's constitutional right was clearly established. However, the Court cannot make those calls based on the pleadings alone. ... The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it relates to whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

When a defendant asserts qualified immunity in a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.

Williams v. Gray · filed 2022-10-18

Because Defendant has asserted the defense of qualified immunity on this claim, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) Defendant Fowler violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of his conduct.

A municipality defending a Section 1983 claim cannot avoid discovery merely because individual officers assert qualified immunity.

Beltran v. City of Austin · filed 2022-10-19

The City is not entitled to avoid discovery merely because Warren and Levine have invoked qualified immunity.

A defendant can retain qualified immunity from a Section 1983 retaliation claim despite a possible unlawful motive when a lawful reason also supports the conduct and preexisting law did not clearly rule it out.

Watkins v. Sandy Sullivan · filed 2022-10-19

That Sullivan subjectively might also have been motivated in part by an unlawful reason (her dislike of Watkins’s singing) does not deprive her of qualified immunity.

Section 1983 claims against government officials are subject to qualified immunity when the alleged facts do not show a constitutional violation.

Lilly v. University of California- San Diego · filed 2022-10-19

Here, the Court begins and ends with the first prong. As discussed supra Section II, Plaintiffs do not properly allege any § 1983 violations by Defendants. Therefore, the facts, as alleged, could not be a violation of a constitutional right. Accordingly, Defendants Bond, McGann, and Edwards are entitled to qualified immunity and the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 retaliatory-force claim when the right to be free from that force was clearly established.

Essence Welch v. Dempsey · filed 2022-10-20

For these reasons, the order of the district court denying qualified immunity on Welch’s claim alleging retaliatory use of force in violation of the First Amendment is affirmed.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that they violated clearly established law.

Rhodes v. Regents of the University of New Mexico · filed 2022-10-20

The Individual Defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 can be denied qualified immunity at summary judgment when disputed facts could show that they used force that was clearly established as excessive.

McGaskin v. Abraham · filed 2022-10-21

If a trier of fact credits McGaskin’s story, that he was a compliant, non-resisting pretrial detainee when he was punched, kicked, and tased, such conduct falls within that which is clearly established to be excessive force.

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from individual-capacity § 1983 claims when the plaintiff cannot show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Robinson Miller v. Montgomery County Board of Education (CONSENT) · filed 2022-10-21

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants’ conduct caused any violation of her “clearly established” right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace, Plaintiff has not met her burden to overcome the qualified immunity defense in this case.

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

Heard v. Landfair · filed 2022-10-21

Because Heard has not shown that any of his constitutional rights were violated, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Section 1983 defendants are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff fails to show that their conduct violated a clearly established right.

Hodge v. Engleman · filed 2022-10-21

Defendants are also entitled to the defense of qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not met their “heavy” and “demanding” burden of showing that Defendants’ use of force violated a clearly established right.

Officials are entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 damages claim when their conduct did not violate a clearly established right.

West v. Emig · filed 2022-10-24

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

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

Tachias v. Los Lunas Schools Board of Education · filed 2022-10-24

Consequently, the unlawfulness of Defendant’s actions was apparent in light of pre-existing law, and Plaintiffs have thus met their burden for defeating the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from Section 1983 liability when the plaintiff cannot show that the challenged conduct violated clearly established law.

Hampton v. State of Nevada · filed 2022-10-24

Lunt is entitled to qualified immunity for Hampton’s pre-warrant detention.

Qualified immunity protects an officer from a § 1983 claim when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established in the specific factual context.

(PC) Elias v. Kinross · filed 2022-10-25

To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers: (1) whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the officers' conduct violated “clearly established” federal law. ... Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of defendants Kinross and Gilliam on the Free Exercise Clause claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 have qualified immunity for entering a home when a previously locked door opens during their knock and announce, because no clearly established law forbids that entry.

Quinn v. Zerkle · filed 2022-10-26

To the extent that there is any doubt about whether the Kanawha Deputies violated the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by entering the house when the door opened as they conducted a K-9 knock and announce, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity.

Section 1983 does not impose liability on officers protected by qualified immunity when no clearly established law prohibited their entry into a home.

Toon v. Zerkle · filed 2022-10-26

To the extent that there is any doubt about whether the Kanawha Deputies violated the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by entering the house when the door opened as they conducted a K-9 knock and announce, they are protected from liability by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from Section 1983 liability for accidental force that does not clearly violate a constitutional right.

Schierbaum v. Canavan · filed 2022-10-26

Thus, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Schierbaum’s claim that Defendants applied excessive force when Beard’s rifle came into contact with his forehead and caused a laceration.

Discovery in a Section 1983 action must be stayed when a defendant files a dispositive motion asserting qualified immunity.

Jarrott v. Madrid · filed 2022-10-26

Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to depart from the general rule that once a defendant files a dispositive motion asserting qualified immunity, discovery must be stayed.

A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim on the public concern issue when binding precedent clearly establishes that the employee’s speech addresses a matter of public concern.

Darlow v. Babineck · filed 2022-10-27

For foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court that Darlow’s speech involves a matter of public concern and that Ba- binec is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this issue is AFFIRMED.

Qualified immunity shields an officer from liability under Section 1983 when the officer acts within discretionary authority and the plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation.

Aaron Tarrie Ashley, Sr. v. Bennett · filed 2022-10-27

Next, the district court did not err in finding that Officer Bennett was shielded by qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officers from § 1983 liability when their conduct violates no constitutional right.

Otkins v. Gilboy · filed 2022-10-27

There was no Constitutional violation, and the officers’ conduct remained reasonable throughout the entire encounter. Thus, qualified immunity is warranted.

Section 1983 claims against individual officials are subject to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows that the alleged violation was of clearly established law.

New Mexico Horsemen's Association v. Bregman · filed 2022-10-27

As a result, the Court must find that Plaintiff has not carried its burden to allege facts sufficient to overcome qualified immunity, and therefore, the Court must dismiss the retaliation claims against the individual Defendants.

Police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 claim at summary judgment when genuine factual disputes could allow a jury to find that they violated clearly established rights.

Coleman v. Brookside, Alabama, Town of,et al · filed 2022-10-28

However, Plaintiff has demonstrated that qualified immunity is not appropriate by pointing to genuine factual disputes over whether Defendants acted reasonably when handcuffing Plaintiff and impounding her vehicle. Resolving any doubts in favor of Plaintiff, the non-movant, a reasonable jury could find that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and thus summary judgment is not warranted at this stage.

Qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim against an official when the asserted constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.

Vanlandingham v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2022-10-28

The Court therefore finds that Firefighters are entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability for the § 1983 claims asserted against them for an unlawful detention of, or use of unreasonable force against, Mr. Vanlandingham.

A § 1983 plaintiff must show that the asserted constitutional right was clearly established at the time to overcome qualified immunity.

(PC) Witkin v. Wise · filed 2022-10-31

The court is also aware of no authority that could show the defendants’ actions deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time, as would be necessary to overcome the defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity.

Officers sued under Section 1983 are not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment when material factual disputes prevent its determination.

Freeman v. Field Service Agents · filed 2022-10-31

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

A defendant is shielded from a Section 1983 claim by qualified immunity when the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Vorobyev v. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-10-31

Moreover, we find that the law was not clearly established at the time of Wolfe’s alleged violative act; therefore, Wolfe is shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from a Section 1983 claim when a reasonable factfinder could find that they violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.

Doyle v. State of Nevada · filed 2022-11-01

Next, Judge Denney correctly concluded that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable factfinder could find that Defendants violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Section 1983 does not provide qualified immunity to an official when the evidence supports a violation of a clearly established right.

Ford v. Page · filed 2022-11-01

Because Ford’s First Amendment retaliation claim is clearly established, Page is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields officials from individual-capacity § 1983 claims when settled law did not put them on notice that their conduct violated a constitutional right.

Krasno, Madeline v. Blank, Rebecca · filed 2022-11-02

As discussed below, because there was no settled law putting defendants on notice that their moderation decisions violated Krasno’s First Amendment rights, her individual capacity claims must be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity defenses in § 1983 suits must be decided at the earliest possible stage, without discovery if a ruling remains pending.

Tuttle v. Sepolio · filed 2022-11-02

Second, because a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity must be decided “at the earliest possible stage of the litigation,” Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021), if the district court has not ruled on the Officers’ qualified-immunity defenses with respect to each claim against which the defense was asserted, the district court must rule on each pending defense within thirty days from the filing of this opinion. In the event that this ruling is necessary, the district court must do so without allowing discovery.

Section 1983 permits a federal plaintiff with an otherwise valid § 1983 claim to proceed without exhausting state administrative remedies, and an action under § 1983 falls within the anti-injunction statute’s exception for injunctions expressly authorized by Congress.

Gibson v. Berryhill · filed 1973-05-07

Last Term, after the District Court's decision here, this Court determined that actions brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,42 U. S. C. § 1983, were within the “expressly authorized” exception to the ban on federal injunctions. ... But this Court has expressly held in recent years that state administrative remedies need not be exhausted where the federal court plaintiff states an otherwise good cause of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides an independent federal claim for constitutional deprivations that does not require exhaustion of state remedies.

Davy v. Sullivan · filed 1973-02-16

An action brought under section 1983 to remedy the deprivation of a constitutional right is an independent federal claim, not premised on exhaustion of state remedies.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust state judicial or administrative remedies before bringing the federal action.

Castor v. Mitchell · filed 1973-02-23

Exhaustion of the plaintiff and of state remedies is not required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 does not require a plaintiff to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a civil-rights suit.

Snead v. Department of Social Services, City of New York · filed 1973-03-12

In a series of decisions over the last decade, however, the Supreme Court has held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required in cases brought under the Civil Rights Act.

Section 1983 actions generally do not require exhaustion of state remedies, although a federal court may postpone hearing the claims pending a related state administrative hearing.

Mondell v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · filed 1973-03-20

Postponing the hearing of plaintiff’s claims for reinstatement, back pay and damages, even if such postponement was not with the specific agreement of the plaintiff and without objection by the defendant, is not contrary to the general rule that Section 1983 actions in federal court do not require exhaustion of state remedies.

Section 1983 permits direct resort to federal court without exhausting administrative remedies, but a plaintiff who never requested an available administrative hearing is not in proper posture to obtain damages for its denial.

Bowles v. Robbins · filed 1973-04-13

It is, of course, recognized that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416, 417, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (1967); Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 196.9); Carpenter v. Harrison, Civ. No. 5919, D.C.Vt. (June 2, 1970). But having failed to request a hearing and electing to forego that procedure in favor of proceeding directly to this court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he is not in proper posture to claim a monetary award based on the denial of an administrative hearing.

Section 1983 permits a civil-rights action to proceed without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies or consideration of abstention.

Owens v. Parham · filed 1972-09-29

Since this action is brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court need not consider questions of abstention or exhaustion of administrative remedies, King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 312 at n. 3, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416, 88 S.Ct. 526, 19 L.Ed.2d 647 (1967).