Case law

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).

Bean v. District of Columbia Courts

930 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2013

“In order to have a protectable right, a person ‘clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Even if Lewis and Ballester enjoyed only qualified immunity, or no immunity at all, plaintiff would not succeed against them under

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

Brown v. Short

729 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2010

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 known … in light of clearly established law.

Richardson v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity—no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Marshall v. Reno

915 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 1996

Still, the Court is unable to exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants, the defendant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims against them in their individual capacities because the plaintiff fails to establish that he had a clearly established right to be transferred, deported, or placed

Weaver v. Hanna

122 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2000

establish probable cause.”) … Officers making a lawful Terry stop, like those making a lawful arrest, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Rumsfeld

800 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Where, however, the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations, taken as true, show the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, a defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity must be denied

Hardeman v. Clark

593 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 1984

Additionally, the government asserts that the defendant Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. However, at this stage of the proceedings, these arguments must be rejected. … The government also states that Maurice Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. In Harlow v.

Thomas v. District of Columbia

887 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 1995

Qualified Immunity Officials like Sergeant Ingram are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them in their personal capacity unless their conduct … Sergeant Ingram is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Berberich

704 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1988

The complaint clearly alleges a violation of the established right against unwarranted strip searches, and therefore meets the heightened pleadings standard of Bivens actions which requires plaintiffs to “specify the ‘clearly … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects from suit "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Kline v. Republic of El Salvador

603 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1985

Qualified immunity from suit is available to executive officials to the extent that, in *1319 the performance of discretionary functions, “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … VI Conclusion All the claims for damages under this lawsuit must be dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity or qualified individual immunity.

Daniels v. District of Columbia

894 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2012

Likewise, the current record does not support a finding that Officers Alvarenga and Salice are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity.

Ford v. Donovan

843 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2012

Although not entitled to absolute immunity, the DCHA Defendants are not without defenses. The doctrine of qualified immunity is still available. … In order to receive qualified immunity, the public official must show that his “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Epps v. Gray

62 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2014

Mem. at 8-9, they assert qualified immunity as a defense, id. at 9. … And it is presumed that these rights were clearly established on August 12, 2011.

Washington v. District of Columbia

685 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1988

Plaintiff further contends that the defendants’ application for a search warrant was unreasonable and fell short of the standard for asserting qualified immunity established in Anderson v. … The Anderson court made it clear that when applying the qualified immunity standard established by Harlow in the context of an alleged fourth amendment violation of “clearly established” law, courts must focus on the reasonableness

Byrd v. Moseley

942 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1996

ROACH BECAUSE BOTH DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to summary judgment before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Clark v. District of Columbia

241 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Defendants argue that Defendant Manley is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant Manley violated a “clearly established” right at the time of

Pointer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2010

As its name implies, qualified immunity serves as an "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Id. (quoting Mitchell v. … facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right" and "whether the right was clearly established."