Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)

Citation: Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Parent Document: Luz Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290 (1998)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1998-12-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/759590/luz-gonzalez-v-lee-county-housin... ↗

Full Text

1,351 chars

45
As this line of cases expressly acknowledges, however, the logic they employ does not apply where a statute or regulation specifically creates the plaintiff's cause of action, because in those instances, government officials are on notice of the parameters of their exposure to suit and liability. See Davis, 468 U.S. at 194 n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 3019 n. 12 ("[I]f a statute or regulation does give rise to a cause of action for damages, clear violation of the statute or regulation forfeits immunity only with respect to damages caused by that violation."); Childress, 825 F.2d at 1553 ("[N]either federal nor state officials lose their immunity by violating the clear command of a statute or regulation ... unless that statute or regulation provides the basis for the cause of action sued upon.") (quoting Davis, 468 U.S. at 194 n. 12, 104 S.Ct. at 3019 n. 12); Harbert, 157 F.3d at 1285 (same).40 As the Supreme Court subsequently described its decision in Davis:Davis, in short, concerned not the authorities a court may consider in determining qualified immunity, but this entirely discrete question: Is qualified immunity defeated where a defendant violates any clearly established duty, including one under state law, or must the clearly established right be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based? The Court held the latter.

Other Sections in This Document (152)

Full Text