Case law

Loumiet v. United States of America

255 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2017

, and qualified immunity. 1. … basis of qualified immunity.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Witchard v. Surampudi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

As a government official, Surampudi is, at minimum, entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Rockefeller v. United States Court of Appeals Office, for the Tenth Circuit Judges

248 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2003

The Supreme Court has established two avenues by which public officials may receive immunity from personal liability in a civil action for damages: absolute and qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function receives qualified immunity in a civil action, provided that his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights” of which

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Dingle v. District of Columbia

571 F. Supp. 2d 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to both claims of false arrest. 5 Construing the facts in favor of plaintiffs deposition testimony, the Court finds the officers … Applying the two-part analysis to this action, it appears from this record that Officer Moore violated a clearly established right.

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino

240 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

“The doctrine of 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 … On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard 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 court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

Green v. Security Assurance Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity “means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Thus, an officer conducting a search “is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–44. … But even putting aside the different facts that case presented, a decision of a district court cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Freeman v. Fallin

310 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2004

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] 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.” … establish that the urinalysis testing at issue here qualifies as a search.

Madison v. Cruz

359 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2019

The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … I find that had Defendant McDonald been aware that Plaintiff was outed as an informant and previously assaulted but declined to act to ensure Plaintiff's safety, it would qualify as a violation of Plaintiff's clearly established

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2024

A court should not define “clearly established law at a high level of generality,” id. … Officer Dorghoud is not entitled to relief on Counts I, III, or IV Even considering the body-worn camera footage, Officer Dorghoud has not established his entitlement to qualified immunity or qualified privilege