Case law

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).

James v. United States

709 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1989

The qualified immunity of a federal official attaches unless the official violates a clearly established right of the plaintiff or acts unreasonably under the circumstances. See Harlow v. … As the Supreme Court has explained, qualified immunity protects from suit “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v.

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.

Mitchell v. Yates

402 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2005

This issue is relevant to both municipal liability and qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability in § 1983 actions “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Robinson v. Pilgram

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2021

Even for pro se litigants, courts in this Circuit find failure to adequately allege whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged injury dispositive in the qualified immunity analysis. … Sept. 17, 2021) (finding a pro se litigants’ claims barred by qualified immunity where they “fail[ed] to identify any clearly established 36 constitutional right”);

Bernier v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2018

were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred. … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s Bivens claim on the second “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Hargraves v. District of Columbia

134 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2015

Qualified Immunity In suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “[p]ublic officials are immune from suit . . . … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official’s] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

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.”

Inversora Murten, S.A. v. Energoprojekt Holding Co.

671 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2009

Similarly, in its notice of sovereign immunity, JICA stated that it is an “official agency of the Government of Japan, established by legislative enactment of the Japanese Diet.” … When a defendant qualifies for sovereign immunity, “the federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction” over proceedings against that defendant, and therefore “must dismiss the case” against the immune defendant.

Noble Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2025

In 2020 and 2021, the PRC issued distinct, dollar-denominated bonds on the Hong Kong Exchange, which were sold to qualified institutional investors in the United States. Id. ¶ 38. … “A foreign state explicitly waives its sovereign immunity in a treaty or contract only if it ‘clearly and unambiguously’ agrees to suit.” Ivanenko v. Yanukovich, 995 F.3d 232, 239 (D.C.

Kenley v. District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 3d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2015

within one month of its discovery, that duty was not clearly established at the time. … In Section 1983 cases, “[t]he 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

Brown v. Handy

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 … DSO Short’s Conduct Was Not Objectively Reasonable in Light of Clearly Established Law The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry requires courts to examine whether the defendant

Saffron v. Wilson

70 F.R.D. 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 1975

These defendants are presently before the Court, seeking dismissal, or in the alternative, summary judgment, essentially on the ground that they enjoy either an absolute or a qualified immunity from prosecution in this action … Instead, reliance must now be placed on the defense afforded by the doctrine of qualified immunity. C. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE SCHEUERr-APTON TEST In Scheuer v.

Bancoult v. McNamara

227 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2002

When a plaintiff brings an action against the United States, establishing subject-matter jurisdiction requires an additional step, as the United States cannot be sued absent an explicit statutory waiver of sovereign immunity … For example, can a claim for in-junctive relief against the United States that is premised on customary international law qualify for a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ.

377 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2019

Section 104.4 prohibits federal fund recipients from denying qualified handicapped persons the opportunity to participate in or benefit from provided aids, benefits, or services; ... and [from] providing qualified handicapped … ,' and (2) 'suffice to establish the affirmative defense with certitude.' " Gray v.

Anderson v. Gates

20 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2013

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … Here, Anderson fails to demonstrate a clearly established right, hence the Court need only reach the second prong.

S.H. v. District of Columbia

270 F. Supp. 3d 260 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2017

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would have known … 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.

Liser v. Smith

254 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2003

In the present case, the Court concludes that Detective Smith’s conduct relating to plaintiffs arrest and continued detention are protected by qualified immunity. … As such, defendant’s actions in preparing the affidavit are protected by qualified immunity.

Vasquez v. County of Will, Illinois

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: (1) “an official ‘violated a constitutional right’” and (2) “‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Fenwick v.

Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

929 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1996

Courts have held that plaintiffs relying on Bivens are held to a "heightened pleading standard” requiring plaintiffs to “specify the 'clearly established’ rights they allege to have been violated with ... precision].” … Additionally, federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defendants’ alleged actions violated clearly established law