Case law

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“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.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Second, regarding defendant Quick’s claims of absolute immunity, plaintiff argues that immunity is only warranted where officials “can prove that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … When determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts must ask whether the official engaged in conduct that violated the clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of a person of which

Masel v. Barrett

707 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1989

The “clearly established” rule, however, cannot be so broadly defined that plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of … Defendant’s contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no “clearly established” rule of law to govern his conduct at that time also fails.

Hirpassa v. Albert

648 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

. *151 By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Simmons v. Skelonc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2021

conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … Because Plaintiff has failed to “allege sufficient facts to establish that [Officer Skelonc] is not entitled to qualified immunity,” Patterson, 999 F.

Jones v. Kirchner

66 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2014

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Defs.’ Mem. at 34-35. I agree. … Qualified immunity does not protect “those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

United States v. Edelin

76 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1999

are not entitled to qualified immunity. … ’ qualified immunity 1 .

Jones v. District of Columbia

892 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Hardy v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right,” and “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Greene v. Shegan

123 F. Supp. 3d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2015

“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 … [and (2) ] whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 (internal citations omitted).

Flythe v. District of Columbia

4 F. Supp. 3d 216 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2014

But if there is a constitutional violation, the court must ask the second question, which is: was the right violated “clearly established?” Id. … Moreover, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts regarding the constitutional violation prong of the qualified immunity analysis suggest that Officer Vazquez’s conduct violated clearly established

Komongnan v. U.S. Marshals Service

471 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2006

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 … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Thomas v. Fulwood, Jr.

128 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, defendants argue that, even if Fulwood does not enjoy absolute quasi- judicial immunity, he would be protected by qualified immunity. See generally Defs.’ Mem. at 26-31. … ” and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia

466 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2006

The Court tentatively concludes, however, that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims, on the basis that the Eighth Amendment rights in question were not clearly established … “Qualified immunity generally shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Daul v. Meckus

897 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are “generally shielded from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The availability of qualified immunity typically turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the official’s action assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken.

White v. United States of America

863 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2012

clearly established.” … Courts may grant qualified immunity “on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly-established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.

Raynor v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2022

established” prong of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the qualified-immunity analysis for these Defendants begins and ends with the “clearly established” prong.

Williams v. District of Columbia

439 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2006

alleged; and (2) assuming the violation is established, whether the right was clearly established. … To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, the constitutional right must be clearly established, that is, “clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation confronted.”

Ogden v. District of Columbia

676 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 1987

Defendant Manjoras moved to dismiss the section 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity and the common law claims on the basis of absolute immunity. … In Anderson , the Court made it clear that a qualified immunity analysis requires close examination of whether under the particular facts presented a clearly established right was violated.

Dorsey v. District of Columbia

234 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2017

“Although government officials may be sued in their individual capacities for damages . . . qualified immunity protects officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As to the Defendant Officers, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if “a reasonable officer could have believed that [his actions] were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers