Case law

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2015

that were clearly established at the time.’” … Glover did not violate any clearly-established right under the Fourth Amendment, all three individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the Saucier test.

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

K.O. v. Sessions, III

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2020

On the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’’’ Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Mullenix v. … conduct is clearly established.

Millet v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63 (2018) (“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … As noted, “officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Qualified immunity protects officials from suits unless their actions are (1) plainly incompetent, or (2) committed with knowledge of violation of clearly established law. See Malley v. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009) (finding that officials were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional).

Langford v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2020

Defendants contend that plaintiff has pled no facts to support a § 1983 claim and that they “are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. … It concludes nonetheless that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity since the allegations fail to show their violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Harlow v.

Pretzman v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2024

“The United States is generally immune from suit unless there is explicit statutory waiver of its sover- eign immunity.” Lewis v. D.C. Police Dep’t, 271 F. … Supp. 3d 18, 23 (D.D.C. 2022) (“The Privacy Act provides a waiver of sovereign immunity, but the waiver is limited in scope: the Act only waives sovereign immunity for ‘actual damages.’ . . .

Elkins v. District of Columbia

527 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2007

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 … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, a court must make a two-fold inquiry.

Zhi Chen v. District of Columbia

808 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2011

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers’ action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly

Sherrod v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2018

Accordingly, Detective McHugh is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because the stop did not violate the Sherrods’ constitutional rights or, at the very least, it was not clearly established that a stop of this … established, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Tabb v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

immunity. … that right was clearly established — in either order).

Jones v. Yanta

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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

Kyle v. Bedlion

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

Sergeant Bedlion Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity With Respect To Kyle’s Excessive-Force Claim Because It Was Not Clearly Established That Bedlion’s Use Of Force Violated Kyle’s Fourth Amendment … violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive -force claim. B.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

813 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2011

"If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id. … Marshal protected by qualified immunity where “the law in 2002 did not clearly establish that strip searching all male arrestees prior to placement in holding cells at the Superior Court violated the Fourth Amendment.”)

Winfield v. Keefe

357 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2019

"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," City of Escondido, Cal. v. … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Siegert v. Gilley

692 F. Supp. 1406 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1988

When the Harlow Court redefined the qualified immunity defense it provided an additional basis for defendant to retain his qualified immunity even if his actions violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Our inquiry does not end with the identification of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the stripping away of defendant’s qualified immunity.

Muhammad v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (holding that qualified immunity turns upon the “objective legal reasonableness of the officers' action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established … “[T]he protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.’ ”

Dukore v. District of Columbia

970 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2013

“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 … Arresting the plaintiffs An officer making an arrest is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the seizure violates the Fourth Amendment.

Young v. District of Columbia

107 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2015

Cir. 2015) (“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 of the violation.”) … 12 clearly established at the time,” Lash, 2015 U.S.

Schifanelli v. Loveday

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from suit under [Section] 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established law.” Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 2026 WL 795469, at *2 (U.S. … June 9, 2025) (denying a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a case that did not involve a drug-sniffing dog because Rodriguez is clearly established law).