Case law

Barney v. Suggs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified immunity applies unless Burney can show that the officers (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Plumhoff v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless Burney can show that they (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Smith v. Lanier

779 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court asks (1) whether plaintiffs’ allegations, if taken as true, show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly … Defendants have not argued that the constitutional right at issue is not clearly established.

Farmer v. Hawk

991 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1998

When an official raises a qualified immunity defense, the “plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated ‘.clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … which was “clearly established” and “of which a reasonable person would have known” in order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity.

Partovi v. Matuszewski

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

Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

650 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

If the alleged conduct does not violate such a clearly established right, qualified immunity applies. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … As explained herein, the Court finds that plaintiff has stated violations of clearly established rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, and therefore, defendants are not shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity

Maddux v. District of Columbia

144 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2015

Saucier inquiry: whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established.” … immunity.

Spencer v. District of Columbia

168 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2016

not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … “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

Evanson v. United States

878 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1995

Because defendants neither violated any clearly established rights of plaintiff nor acted unreasonably in regard to the matters about which plaintiff complains (as determined in two other proceedings by two other judges), … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gladden v. Barry

558 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 1983

Initially, if it is true as alleged, that Defendant Gutierrez discriminated against plaintiff, then without a doubt, this defendant did “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A contrary holding would convert the qualified immunity granted to federal officials into absolute protection—because simply by filing an affidavit denying wrongdoings officials could create a complete shield against suit

Charles v. Kelly

790 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1992

Moreover, “[ujnless the plaintiffs 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. … Qualified immunity is unavailable for injunctive relief. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Youngbey v. District of Columbia

766 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2011

Qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Accordingly, the Court finds that the constitutional right in question was sufficiently established to satisfy the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance

950 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1997

Gilbert’s claim is not tenable because the executed settlement agreement clearly does not provide for prejudgment interest. … Gilbert has failed to establish that she qualifies for relief under the Back Pay Act. 7 . It is plaintiff's burden to establish that she is a "prevailing party.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Pitts v. District of Columbia

177 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

They argue that the MPD Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a violation of their clearly established constitutional rights. … For this reason, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers

Phillips v. Mabus

894 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Bame v. … Accordingly, the Court will deny defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. 6 Traugh and Bosworth also contend that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are not clearly established

Bame v. Clark

466 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2006

Qualified Immunity. Mr. Dillard also argues that regardless of what theory of liability is asserted against him, he is entitled to qualified immunity for any claims arising out of alleged strip searches at the D.C. … Even though Plaintiffs have alleged the violation of a constitutional right, former Marshal Dillard may still be entitled to qualified immunity at this stage if the constitutional right was not clearly established at the

Bame v. Clark

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2009

immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation in September 2002. … 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

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

251 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2003

Defendants Quinlan and Miller moved to dismiss or for sum *53 mary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the Court denied qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims against defendants Quinlan and Miller in their individual capacities. Id.

Best v. District of Columbia

743 F. Supp. 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 1990

Lastly, defendants Britton and Ballard assert the defense of qualified immunity, relying largely on Siegert v. Gilley, 895 F.2d 797 (D.C.Cir.1990). … Siegert discusses qualified immunity in connection with a suit for damages under the doctrine of Bivens v.

Solomon v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

539 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2008

Defendants Named in Personal Capacity Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their personal capacities retain the shield of qualified immunity to the extent that, in the performance of discretionary … In this case, the Court need look no further than the first-step of qualified immunity analysis. As stated in section II.

Briscoe v. Potter

355 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2004

However, because Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must also determine whether the contours of the specific constitutional violation that Plaintiffs allege were “clearly established … Qualified immunity shields State officials from constitutional liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”