Case law

Biscayne Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Pratt

646 F. Supp. 371 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 1986

Plaintiffs may overcome defendants’ qualified immunity only by showing that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct in question. Mitchell, 105 S.Ct. at 2820 ; Davis v. … clearly established constitutional rights.

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

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

Washington v. Amand

308 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects all public officials except the "plainly incompetent [and] those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. … Second, we inquire whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.

Simon v. Bickell

737 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

Even if Atkins, Bickell, and Kelly were not entitled to absolute immunity, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. … "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 of the conduct

Bridgeforth v. Bronson

584 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from paying damages and facing suit in civil actions where the officials were performing a discretionary function that did not “violate clearly established statuto *118 ry … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps.

Johnson v. GOVERNMENT OF DIST. OF COLUMBIA

780 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2011

Circuit has very recently made “plain that a constitutional right” as alleged by Plaintiffs “is not clearly established,” id., it is prudent for this Court to proceed directly to qualified immunity. … clearly established law to be followed in 2002.

Fenwick v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2016

immunity. … Circuit determined, on summary judgment following full discovery, that “it was not clearly established that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment.” Fenwick v. Pudimott, 778 F.3d at 139.

Dodge v. Trustees of the National Gallery of Art

326 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2004

qualified immunity is lost. … If the federal official was not on notice that his conduct would clearly be unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Malley v.

Patel v. Liu

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that qualified immunity warrants dismissal even if Bivens would supply a cause of action here. See Defs.’ Mem. at 18. The court agrees. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

Mittleman v. United States Treasury

773 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1991

Qualified Immunity and Lack of Specificity There are two ways in which plaintiff may overcome defendants’ defense *452 of qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a defendant’s claim of immunity under the objective standard, plaintiff must show that a defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Partovi v. Matuszewski

647 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 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

Jackson v. District of Columbia

672 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1987

does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818,102 S.Ct. at 2738. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (recognizing qualified immunity of state police officers). 7 The Court has also made clear that the qualified immunity defense is intended not only

Armbruster v. Frost

962 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Stevenson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2022

on qualified immunity grounds. … In finding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, the court further emphasized that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case is whether, as [the plaintiff] alleges, the law clearly prohibited

Watson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2024

Mot. at 6 n.5, arguing only that Director Faust is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir. 2014) (refusing, at the summary judgment stage, to grant qualified immunity to officers based on defendants’ concession that “clearly established law” required officers to take “some

Wallace v. District of Columbia

685 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2010

The officers’ stronger argument is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The officers’ qualified immunity defense is evaluated under the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … “If the facts alleged do establish that a constitutional right was violated,” the Court “go[es] on to ask whether that right was ‘clearly established.’ ” Id.

Bolger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

461 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2006

First he argues that the claims against him must be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The next question in deciding qualified immunity is whether the constitutional rights in question were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Int’l Action Ctr., 365 F.3d at 24 .