Case law

Shifrin v. Wilson

412 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 1976

Having established that Wilson is entitled to the “good faith and reasonableness” qualified immunity, the Court turns to the question of whether, under those standards, his liability can be determined on plaintiff’s motion … Instead, as this Court held, again pursuant to established precedent, a “good faith and reasonableness” qualified immunity is appropriate for the officials involved.

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.”).

Washington v. Fenty

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 (2001).

Ingram v. Shipman-Meyer

241 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time … - Meyer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of

Pollard v. District of Columbia

191 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2016

Qualified immunity “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 person … established constitutional law, and thus, these claims fail both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Turpin v. Ray

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2018

“clearly established” under the circumstances. … Callahan, Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle, 819 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28–29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Molina-Aviles v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

He also asserts qualified immunity. … 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.

Tafler v. District of Columbia

539 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity “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 person would … The Court now turns to whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established.

Hirpassa v. Albert

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

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

Koutny v. Martin

530 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2007

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 known … “the sometimes nuanced issues involved with qualified immunity” becomes “unnecessary.”

Morgan v. Barry

785 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1992

Third, “because the officer may have a qualified immunity from liability for his conduct ... the complaint must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right ... that was clearly established at the … District of Columbia, 932 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1991) (finding qualified immunity because officers were not under a clearly established constitutional obligation to obtain medical care for drug overdose victim). 20 .

Jenkins v. District of Columbia

4 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to the performance of their discretionary functions unless an official’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Coley’s arguments for qualified immunity, they will be denied. Her argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity for the assault at the police cruiser will be denied.

Fludd v. Mitchell

181 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Even if the various “J. … “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 person would have known.

Goolsby v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2018

False Arrest The Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Goolsby’s false arrest claim unless (1) their actions violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of their actions … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Ruiz Rivera v. Holder

666 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider ''whether the alleged facts show that the individual’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and ... whether that right was clearly established

Johnson v. District

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2025

Indeed, when the constitutional-violation question is difficult to answer, many courts opt to resolve qualified-immunity claims on the “clearly established” prong alone. … Clearly Established Law The next prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Bragdon v. Malone

425 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2006

Malone asserts qualified immunity for his actions in a footnote. The assertion can be dealt with in a footnote. … The defense 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

Rosemond v. Washington

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2025

Even assuming Defendants’ conduct violated his Fifth Amendment rights,2 as individuals, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established” law. McGinnis v. … And while Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss, The Court construes Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as being brought under 42 U.S.C. 1 § 1983.