CA11: Just saying something is clearly established doesn’t make it so for QI

Just saying something is clearly established doesn’t make it so for qualified immunity. “Stallworth has not met her burden. Although Stallworth argues that Hurst violated her ‘clearly established rights,’ she has not presented a case with materially similar facts, demonstrated that a broad statement of constitutional law clearly established a constitutional right, or shown conduct so egregious that her rights were clearly violated. Instead, her discussion of malicious prosecution focuses exclusively on the district court’s alleged error in deciding the case on a ground not argued by Hurst. But because Hurst has argued qualified immunity as an alternative basis for affirmance, Stallworth was required to meet her burden regardless of whether the district court might have erred on some other ground. Stallworth failed to demonstrate a violation of clearly established law, so Hurst is entitled to qualified immunity.” Stallworth v. Hurst, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 38601 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2021).