Case law

Epps v. U.S. Attorney General

575 F. Supp. 2d 232 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2008

CSO James is protected by qualified immunity. 10 Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to performance of their discretionary functions unless an official’s conduct violated a clearly established … “On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the partfy’s] submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Id. In the present case, Mr.

Ballard v. Holinka

601 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Al Janko v. Gates

831 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2011

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (stating that qualified immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability") (emphasis in original). … Defs. at 25 - were not clearly established at the time of his detention, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity even if a Bivens action were implied. See Pearson v.

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2020

Supp. 3d at 198 (“[T]the applicability of qualified immunity turns on whether the facts as pleaded establish that [Defendants’] conduct was clearly prohibited under circumstances before them.” (citing Wesby, 138 S. … Supp. 199 (concluding that there was not a clearly established reasonable expectation of privacy based on the facts as alleged, and ruling on qualified immunity grounds).

Tolymbekova v. Rubio

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2025

The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … Thus, the APA waives sovereign immunity in this case. See 5 U.S.C. § 702. C.

Carmer v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2025

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether a constitutional mandate must be “clearly established”—similar to principles undergirding the qualified immunity doctrine—to render the discretionary function exception … See Def.’s Mem. at 32 n.21 (advocating for the more stringent “clearly established” standard); Pl.’s Opp’n at 12 (contending that the “clearly established” standard as applied in the discretionary-function context “has

Dormu v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Davis v. Transportation Security Administration

264 F. Supp. 3d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2017

Plaintiff simply made no effort to respond to either of Defendants’ immunity arguments. WMATA argued that it was immune from suit under the WMATA Compact. WMATA’s Mot. Dismiss at 5–7. … Supp. 3d at 113 (describing Plaintiff’s burden to establish subject- matter jurisdiction).

Goodwin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2022

Mem. at 8. 5 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials sued in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Barnhardt v. District of Columbia

723 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2010

Qualified Immunity Sloan and Ramadhan argue that there was probable cause for Barnhardt’s arrest and hence no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and, therefore, that qualified immunity protects them from suit. … Qualified immunity therefore protects Sloan from suit.

Amobi v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections

262 F.R.D. 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2009

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993)), they are cloaked with qualified immunity that must be defeated before discovery can proceed in a lawsuit based on the prosecutor’s actions. See, e.g., Siegert v. … prosecutor were not performed in his or her official capacity; (2) 19 if they won on that point, they would have to defeat a claim of qualified immunity by establishing

Fairbanks v. O'Hagan

378 F. Supp. 3d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless 1) the plaintiff's allegations establish a violation of a protected right, 2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's alleged … and thus defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Wallace v. District of Columbia

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.

Wormley v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

But if so, then Step Two asks “whether the right was clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

McGovern v. George Washington University

245 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2017

Whether the Individual Defendants May Invoke the Defense of Qualified Immunity Need Not Be Addressed “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (explaining that to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must “make out a violation of a constitutional right” and show that “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2023

immunity and qualified privilege should not apply given the facts at hand. … immunity, as the essential facts entitling qualified immunity remain the same.

Guillory v. Bush

505 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2007

Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); (4) the complaint fails to state a claim against officials sued in their personal capacities under § 1983 who are entitled to qualified immunity … because there are no allegations that the officials’ conduct “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow v.

Simon v. Bickell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “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

Beynum v. Boteler

623 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1985

Immun¶ity From Suit Defendant Turner argues that he is immune from suit for two reasons: (1) that he is immune for his “discretionary acts as a high level supervisor,” and (2) that he is entitled to qualified immunity under … The test for when a government official has qualified immunity is set forth in Harlow v.

Holman v. Williams

436 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

Mayor Williams also is immune from personal liability for alleged violations of plaintiffs right to due process by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would