Opinion ID: 785479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualified Immunity on a Section 1983 Claim

Text: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides: 11 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.... 12 Thus, section 1983 provides a remedy for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws. Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 505 (3d Cir.2003); Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204. 13 Qualified immunity is intended to shield government officials performing discretionary functions, including police officers, from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). A defendant has the burden to establish that he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120, 142 n. 15 (3d Cir. 2001). 14 The Supreme Court held in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), that a ruling on qualified immunity must be undertaken using a two-step inquiry. See id. at 200-01, 121 S.Ct. at 2155-56. First, the court must consider whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right. See id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. at 2156; S.G. ex rel. A.G. v. Sayreville Bd. of Educ., 333 F.3d 417, 420 (3d Cir.2003) (When an individual defendant in a section 1983 action claims he is entitled to qualified immunity, our first task is to assess whether the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to establish the violation of a constitutional or statutory right at all.) (quoting Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290, 298 (3d Cir.2000)). If the plaintiff fails to make out a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity inquiry is at an end; the officer is entitled to immunity. Bennett v. Murphy, 274 F.3d 133, 136 (3d Cir.2002). 15 If, however, a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. The relevant dispositive inquiry in making this determination is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. at 2156. If it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer what the law required under the facts alleged, then he is entitled to qualified immunity.