Opinion ID: 681325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harlow v. Fitzgerald and its Progeny

Text: 19 The Supreme Court established the test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald: [G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). This formulation of the qualified immunity inquiry is intended to protect government officials from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability. Id. at 806, 102 S.Ct. at 2732. Thus, the protection of qualified immunity extends to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). 20 The district court based its denial of summary judgment partly on the fact that the defendants might later prevail on the merits. R.2-79 at 16-17. However, because civil suits against government officials can entail significant social costs, see Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814, 102 S.Ct. at 2736, the Supreme Court has, as we noted above, emphasized that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has also repeatedly stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Hunter, 502 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 536. Thus, the denial of summary judgment is not appropriate simply because the defendants might later win at trial. 21 In Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 (11th Cir.1983), this circuit established a two-step analysis for applying the Harlow qualified immunity test. First, the defendant government official must prove that 'he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred.'  Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533, 1539 (11th Cir.1992) (quoting Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849). [T]hen the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant 'violated clearly established constitutional law.'  Id. (quoting Zeigler, 716 F.2d at 849).