Case law

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2018

rights was not clearly established). … This requirement—that an official loses qualified immunity only for violating clearly established law—protects officials accused of violating “extremely abstract rights.” Id.

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

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

Gales v. District of Columbia

47 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 1999

Analysis The § 1983 claims against defendants named in their individual capacities will be barred by the defense of qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of clearly established law and the … Mayberry is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Singh v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2012

was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … that such violations had actually occurred, and because the “right to be free from detention except on reasonable suspicion or probable cause was clearly established” at the time.

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.

Saddler v. D'AMBROSIO

759 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 1990

Defendants further assert that Officer D’Ambrosio is immune from suit because Mr. Saddler cannot point and has not pointed to any action of D’Ambrosio that is violative of clearly established law or is unreasonable. … Saddler’s Fourth Amendment claim against Officer D’Ambrosio is not barred by Officer D’Am-brosio’s qualified immunity.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

75 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2014

Less clear is whether Officer Thau’s decision to strike Westfahl with his baton is protected by qualified immunity. … Thus, Sergeant Mack is entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Zervas v. District of Columbia

817 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages incurred in the performance of a discretionary function “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, qualified immunity is not a bar to plaintiffs claim of intentional racial discrimination in employment. The Court denies defendant’s motion as to the defense of qualified immunity. 6.

Morgan v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 2016

Morgan has not identified any other applicable waiver of the sovereign immunity bar, and thus he has clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims for … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982) (qualified immunity protects only those officials who have acted in an objectively reasonable manner).

Whittaker v. Munoz

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, a court need not “broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.”

Lewis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2025

A plaintiff seeking to overcome a claim of qualified immunity bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right that the officers allegedly violated was clearly established at the relevant time. See Dukore v. … As to each claim, moreover, Defendants invoke their qualified immunity, arguing that they did not act in violation of any clearly established law. Plaintiffs’ response is equally straightforward.

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

Smith’s conduct violated “clearly established law,” and thus Sgt. Smith had a right to qualified immunity. See Bowser II, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 33–35. The Court allowed Mr. … Bowser still has not pointed to “clearly established law” that Sgt. Smith violated. Mr.

Wheeler v. American University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2022

qualified immunity purposes. … clearly established.

Brown v. District of Columbia

249 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2017

“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 … if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Crudup v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2023

clearly established at the time.” … Page 16 of 25  Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their actions is not clearly established, see Defs.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

644 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Gjovernment 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

In Re Iraq and Afghanistan Detainees Litigation

479 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2007

The "threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Hope v. … Accordingly, there being no violation of clearly established constitutional rights in this case, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the alleged constitutional torts. II.