Case law

Winfield v. Town of Andover

305 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 2018

As the constitutional rights in this area are thus not firmly established, the persons sued are entitled to qualified immunity. *293 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions … "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v.

Parker v. Brown

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

“Qualified immunity . . . generally shields [governmental] officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.”

Bettis v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2020

“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 … Defendants “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.”’

Harper v. Blumenthal

478 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1979

Butz incorporated the test for qualified immunity developed for state officials in Scheuer v. … Although not clearly established, it also appears that a cause of action for damages may be stated under the procedural due process component, if it is found that no other remedy is available.

Watts v. Williams

658 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2009

Qualified Immunity is Immunity from Suit “[government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v.

Celikgogus v. Rumsfeld

920 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2013

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 person would have … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs alleged (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of violation. Saucier v.

Jalloh v. Hugee

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2025

“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 … Those undisputed facts entitle Vaillancourt to qualified immunity on each of the two constitutional claims Jalloh asserts against him.

Halperin v. Kissinger

723 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1989

Their motion urges that the qualified immunity doctrine announced in Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, an official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability as a matter of law as long as his actions do not violate constitutional rights that were “clearly established” when he acted. 457

Bernier v. Allen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2020

Complaint plausibly establish a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity defense. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal . . . .”).

Pearson v. District of Columbia

644 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Bush, 448 F.Supp.2d 198, 200 (D.D.C.2006). 12 In this case, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. (Defs.’ … Having concluded that plaintiffs allegations do not show a violation of any constitutional right, the Court need not determine whether the right infringed was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity applies.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2024

Relief under 2 A motion for reconsideration of a court order denying qualified immunity is properly brought under Rule 59(e). See Hanson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ objection to the Court’s denial of qualified immunity fares no better.

Conset Corp. v. Community Services Administration

624 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1985

“the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … The Court finds that the government officials are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. a) The Appropriate Qualified Immunity Standard The former Procunier test encompassed both objective and subjective components

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no “clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff’s assailant through the prison cell-block.” Smith Mot. … “In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish” that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v. Jacks, 239 F.

Nabaya v. Dudeck

38 F. Supp. 3d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2014

The allegations here fail both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry. … The defendant is thus entitled to qualified immunity from damages based on the allegations here.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity can succeed only if the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test is met. See Defs.

Sharpe v. District of Columbia

860 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Detective Clingerman pleads in the alternative that he is protected by qualified immunity 5 for his actions in connection with the search of plaintiffs’ apartment. (Dkt. No. 2 at 9.). … Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Hunter 20 v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 22, 227 (1991).

Ashraf-Hassan v. Embassy of France in the United States

40 F. Supp. 3d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2014

Finally, a foreign state may implicitly waive its right to claim immunity when it agrees to submit a dispute to arbitration in the United States. See Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v. … [U.S. courts] are clearly best able to interpret and apply the laws of this country.” Id.

Loumiet v. United States of America

225 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2016

The court must exercise particular care in discovery matters where a qualified immunity defense has been raised. In Ashcroft v. … Iqbal, the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: “The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including ‘avoidance

Liff v. Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor

156 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In pleading qualified immunity, Defendants argue primarily that “Liff has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right” because “the Complaint at best raises a garden-variety tort claim for

Parker v. Brown

706 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

“Qualified immunity ... generally shields [governmental] officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”