Case law

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.

Lane v. District of Columbia

211 F. Supp. 3d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

officers is barred by qualified immunity. … “[Qualified immunity shields police officers 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.”

Kar v. Rumsfeld

580 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2008

Kar’s problem in this suit, however, is that his right to a probable cause hearing was not clearly established with sufficient specificity to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Kar’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Watts v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity is Immunity from Suit "[G]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it "is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson v. Callahan, _ U.S. _, _, 129 S.

Franz v. United States

591 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1984

In the face of this principle, the plaintiff cannot successfully contend that the defendants have violated any clearly established rights of Mr. … Under this formulation, any activities concerning the administration of the Program would qualify as protected activities, and defendants could invoke the qualified immunity doctrine.

Klayman v. Obama

125 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged the violation of such a right, and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

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.

Bame v. Dillard

647 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2009

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In sum, Defendant Marshal Dillard is not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that blanket strip searches of non-violent, non-felony arrestees were unlawful at the time of the searches at

Hedgpeth v. Rahim

213 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2016

That case was easy: no qualified immunity. … Because the Court cannot say that a reasonable officer would have realized a takedown maneuver in these circumstances violated clearly established law, Rahim is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Leyland v. Edwards

797 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2011

Qualiñed Immunity Even if Leyland’s Bivens claim was not barred due to “special factors,” defendant still has qualified immunity, shielding him from this lawsuit. … Here, the defendant clearly enjoys qualified immunity because he correctly concluded that an unregistered firearm is contraband, see United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 389 (D.C.Cir.1997); Guishard v.

Reaves v. Dep't of Corr.

333 F. Supp. 3d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity (Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX) 11 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Accordingly, I find that this is a constitutional right that is not clearly established and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Mazloum v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

576 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2008

Applying that well-established legal standard, the Court concludes that Ramirez is not entitled to qualified immunity here. … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, then, the Court notes that it is axiomatic that indi *39 viduals enjoy a clearly established right to be secure from excessive force exercised by police officers

Meyer v. Reno

911 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 1996

Sovereign immunity bars any claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity- A. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Prison officials enjoy qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims. Cleavinger v.

Walton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

533 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 2008

“[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Evangelou v. District of Columbia

901 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity 12 protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … use of his answers in a criminal proceeding has been clearly established since 1968.

Odom v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2019

“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. … To defeat a claim of qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim, a plaintiff “must show that: (i) the officer[] violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and (ii) his Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established in

Robinson v. Farley

264 F. Supp. 3d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2017

“have invoked the affirmative defense of qualified immunity . . . in name only[.]” … Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the MPD Officers have invoked the defense of qualified immunity in name only, and as a result, the purported “qualified immunity” basis for dismissal fails for the same reason

Paylor v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2024

These Defendants now seek summary judgment, asserting that qualified immunity shields them both because they acted reasonably when arresting Plaintiff and because they did not offend any clearly established prohibitions … Circuit held that the strikes were not so clearly excessive that qualified immunity was inappropriate. Id. at 1303–04.

Harper v. Booth

382 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish that 1) the official violated a statutory … If the facts do not show a constitutional violation or that the right in question was not clearly established, the officer is immune. Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez , 830 F.3d 38 , 43 (1st Cir. 2016).

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

246 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified immunity Police officers are immune from suit where their actions did not violate clearly established law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243–44 (2009). … At the summary judgment stage on a claim of qualified immunity, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing qualified immunity—in this case, Plaintiff. Id.