Case law

Gunter v. Cicero

364 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2019

"A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory *139 or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … Here, because the court already determined Defendants violated Plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional rights, only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is at issue. 1.

Cooper v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2021

Clearly Established Right The second question hinges on whether the takedown and strikes “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (finding that kicking suspect after he was on ground and subdued violated clearly established law).

Cotton v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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 would have … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

Z Street, Inc. v. Koskinen

44 F. Supp. 3d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Daugherty v. Sheer

248 F. Supp. 3d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity (All Defendants) Defendants also request that this court find that all Defendants are immune from suit because they possess qualified immunity. … Government officials may be protected by qualified immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Eldridge is entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Cpt. … According to defendants, Captain Eldridge enjoys qualified immunity for plaintiffs claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1982 because Cpt. Eldridge did not violate a clearly established right. The Court agrees.

Chs Industries, LLC v. United States Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of 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 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Smith v. Nixon

664 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1987

As such, the Court concluded that the defendants were shielded from liability under the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. … However, when speaking of the fact that the wiretap was not in violation of “clearly established” law, it is abundantly clear that the Court of Appeals was referring solely to the standard for establishing qualified immunity

Taylor v. Moore

383 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2019

"Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts that plaintiff has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established" at the time of defendant's

Quander v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2023

Courts may consider qualified immunity at the pleading stage because it is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the facts alleged by plaintiff do not demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right or (2) the alleged constitutional right violated was not clearly established

Pointer v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2010

As its name implies, qualified immunity serves as an “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. … was clearly established.”

Davis v. Billington

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

whom qualified immunity is not available." … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

16 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 1998

Government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions and "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Barry and Soulsby's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is denied. H.

Bushrod v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … risk of causing significant bodily injury” to an officer just moments beforehand). 28 For his part, Bushrod is nearly silent on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Gray v. Bell

542 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 1982

A prosecutor engaging in investigative or administrative activities is entitled to only qualified immunity. Halperin v. … Even if defendants are entitled only to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case, they still are immune from suit.

Scott v. Conley

937 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2013

Remaining Defendants Are Shielded by Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the named individual defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … No “clearly established” Due Process right Scott has also failed to demonstrate that defendants’ actions could have violated any “clearly established” due process right.

Bowrin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 28, 2023

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v.

Johnson v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the 14 official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” … 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

Ferris v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2023

Defendants also argue Plaintiffs cannot overcome qualified immunity because there was no violation of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 23. … entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Bernier v. Obama

242 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2017

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Here, Plaintiff’s Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred