Case law

Meredith v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

177 F.3d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1999

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (restricting qualified immunity protection to actions where official conduct did not violate a clearly established legal right), such immunity does not extend to a suit seeking equitable … of a clearly established right, the lexical priority of the inquiries are identical.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

528 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

and  7 the qualified immunity defense. … what is clearly established law.

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

983 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

the defendants therefore had qualified immunity from suit. … protected by qualified immunity.

Bernier v. Trump

299 F. Supp. 3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The court held: Plaintiff's Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim on the second "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

841 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 8, 2016

The district court ruled there had been no violation of a clearly established right, concluding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. II. … was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky

697 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1982

Qualified Immunity Ratliff’s investigative and administrative activities are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. As we noted earlier, Harlow makes the test for qualified immunity an objective one. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

734 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2013

In Bame , this Court, addressing only the “clearly established” stage of the qualified immunity analysis, found Dillard entitled to qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment claims brought by male plaintiffs — claims otherwise … As a result, Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment right he is accused of violating was not clearly established at the time of any violation.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

L. Patrick Gray, III v. Griffin Bell

712 F.2d 490 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1983

The second, qualified immunity, 8 is in the nature of an affirmative defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct” does not violate clearly established law).

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

285 F. Supp. 3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 2018

rights was not clearly established). … This requirement-that an official loses qualified immunity only for violating clearly established law-protects officials accused of violating "extremely abstract rights." Id.

Arrington, Derreck v. United States

473 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 2006

Officer Murray’s Claims of Qualified Immunity Appellee Murray seeks affirmance of the District Court’s judgment in his favor on the grounds of qualified immunity. … If constitutional violations are alleged, the court must next determine whether the right allegedly violated is clearly established. Id.

Lederman, Robert v. United States

291 F.3d 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2002

qualified immunity. … Even if the tourist standard represents “clearly established” law, however, two factors convince us that the standard does not bar qualified immunity for the officers in this case.

Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld

649 F.3d 762 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

Finally, the district court held that qualified immunity protected the defendants from the Bivens claims because, even if the plaintiffs possess constitutional rights, “those rights were not clearly established at the time … Furthermore, we concluded the defendants were protected by qualified immunity because, even assuming arguendo the detainees possessed rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, those rights were not clearly established

Dianna Johnson v. Government of the DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2014

Cir. 2011), and in this case following Bame, held that any constitutional rights the Marshal may have violated were not clearly established, entitling him to qualified immunity. … any such right was sufficiently clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct to overcome qualified immunity.

Harris v. District Of Columbia

932 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1991

This obligation, according to the court, was clearly established and appellants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 17-19. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

Allen v. Brown

320 F. Supp. 3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2018

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity argument is similarly premature. Chief Brown is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated "clearly established" rights.

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and District of Columbia Department of Corrections

951 F.2d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1992

She asserted a qualified immunity defense under Harlow v. … Thus, while the cases “clearly establish” that Crawford-El had a constitutional right against any official who interfered with his access to active legal files with intent to impair that access, they do not establish the