Case law

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.

Ford v. Mitchell

890 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2012

“Generally, when a plaintiff sues a governement agent in his individual capacity and the government agent raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must overcome the qualified immunity defense in order to survive … 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 would have

Deutsch v. United States Department of Justice

881 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 1995

Plaintiff fails to identify a clearly established right which the Defendants are alleged to have violated. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims. D.

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 .

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).

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.”

Deluca v. Merner

322 F. Supp. 3d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2018

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials conducting discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In other words, qualified immunity does not apply if the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Nelson v. District of Columbia

953 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

Second, Foster argues that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. … motions raising the qualified immunity defense.

Page v. Mancuso

999 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine “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 … the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

Konah v. District of Columbia

815 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2011

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … qualified immunity from suit.

Arrington v. District of Columbia

597 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2009

The second prong for assessing a claim of qualified immunity under Saucier requires a plaintiff to show that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … by qualified immunity.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Messe

746 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1990

In the alternative, the defendants contend that they are immune from liability because the law was not clearly established. Finally, the defendants argue that special factors militate in favor of granting them immunity. … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Whitacre v. Davey

727 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1988

Finally, even if an action were otherwise stated, Flynn’s dismissal motion was well taken in that her qualified immunity protects her in the present circumstances. 1 The Supreme Court has clearly held that government officials … Since Harlow , the Supreme Court has held [ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Profitt v. District of Columbia

790 F. Supp. 304 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1991

The Court, therefore, holds that all of the individually-named defendants may claim qualified immunity since the law at issue was not clearly established at the time the search occurred. … immunity since the law concerning searches of prison guards was not clearly established in the District of Columbia. *309 Doe v.

Smith v. Lanier

573 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

445 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2006

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 2. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

O'CALLAGHAN v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1990

Nevertheless, because their conduct resulted in the violation of “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Accordingly, their qualified immunity defense must fail.

Jones v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity and Mr. … Jones’s clearly established rights as of 2017.

Crosby-Bey v. Jansson

586 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1984

The distinction between absolute and qualified immunity is that the former defeats a suit at the outset, while the "fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions … , as established by the evidence at trial.”

Pierce v. Mattis

256 F. Supp. 3d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2017

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shield officials from suit if their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).