preview

Defendant: Due Process Violations

Good Essays

5. A mere violation of Defendant’s own policies, procedures, rules, regulations or State law, does not provide a basis for a due process violation. To the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint is intended to be construed as an allegation that the Defendants violated their own policies, procedures, rules, regulations or state law, a mere violation of State law or regulation does not provide a basis for a due process violation. See, e.g. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979) (“Just as ‘[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner,’ false imprisonment does not become a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the defendant is a state official.”); see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (an official’s negligence does not give rise to due process claim); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (defamation by a governmental official does not itself give rise to a due process claim); Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. …show more content…

Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). “In particular, . . . qualified immunity protects law officers from ‘bad guesses in gray areas’ and it ensures that they may be held personally liable only ‘for transgressing bright lines.’” Gomez v. Atkins, 296 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 2002)(quoting Maciariello v. Summer, 973 F.2d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992). Qualified immunity protects public officials for mistakes of law, of fact, or both. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 567 (2004)(Kennedy, J.,

Get Access