Case law

United States v. Navarro

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2023

Br.], at 10–11; June 21, 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 90 [hereinafter June Hr’g Tr.], at 83–84 (defense counsel agreeing that Defendant is entitled only to qualified immunity). … See Testimonial Immunity Before 1 The Department of Justice did not publicly announce its view that a former aide of a former President is entitled to no more than qualified testimonial immunity until after Defendant

Ghawanmeh v. Islamic Saudi Academy

672 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2009

Because defendants, who bear the burden of establishing that none of the FSIA exceptions to sovereign immunity apply, *9 challenge only the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs jurisdictional claims, the Court will take plaintiffs … Clearly, there can be no more obvious and implicit waiver of sovereign immunity than the sovereign’s express intent to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court as demonstrated by a choice of law clause within

Mercurio v. Town of Sherborn

287 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity for their conduct even if they used excessive force. … "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."

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … The qualified-immunity inquiry can be resolved on either of its two prongs: (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a violation of a constitutional right, or (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Because of this similarity, courts’ analysis of the qualified privilege mirrors the qualified-immunity inquiry.

Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. … Ramsey, 434 F.3d 565, 572 (D.C.Cir.2006) (“Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Gilliam v. United States Department of Justice

128 F. Supp. 3d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2015

Supp. 2d 300, 311 (D.D.C. 2013) (stating that “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity” at the motion to dismiss stage). … Thus, Plaintiff faces a high bar to establish that the individual law enforcement officials are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Messerschmidt, 132 S. Ct. at 1245.

Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

947 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2013

The Court allowed this testimony because the plaintiffs established that Mr. … established international law norms.”

Castagna v. Edwards

361 F. Supp. 3d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2019

For qualified immunity to apply, the court must explore "whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right" and "whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at … Mass. 2018) (rejecting the officers' qualified immunity argument).

Parker v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2026

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Because qualified immunity is “immunity from suit,” the Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Pearson v.

Ollar v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2022

“To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show both (1) that an official ‘violated a constitutional right’ and (2) that ‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” … Without showing any constitutional violation at all, Plaintiffs a fortiori cannot show the violation of any “clearly established” right. See Johnson, 734 F.3d at 1201–02.

Chun-Yu Zhao v. Holder

890 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2012

All three defendants, acting in their respective official capacities, enjoy qualified immunity against “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Plaintiff argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity in light of their “failure to simply investigate her scientifically substantiated claim of misconduct.” Pl.’s Opp. to Defs.’

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

85 F. Supp. 3d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2015

As a result, Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the RICO and Hobbs Act claims. Id. … Rather, the Court found that Defendants were “entitled to qualified immunity on the RICO and Hobbs Act claims because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants’ imposition of a Reimbursable Detail violated clearly

Walker v. Femino

311 F. Supp. 3d 441 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2018

Even when an individual's rights have been violated, a police officer may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for certain damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Logiurato v. Action

490 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 1980

Qualified Immunity Liability attaches to the Defendants in the instant case because of the nexus between Defendants’ actions and government control. … The existence of that nexus, however, also provides the Defendants with a qualified immunity from suit. As the Supreme Court stated in Butz v.

Lugo v. U.S. Department of Justice

214 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

The Court need not decide whether such an extension is warranted, however, because qualified immunity is clearly available. … “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 person

Schand v. City of Springfield

380 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

Trial courts in weighing the question of qualified immunity should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Id. (quoting *135 Kisela v. Hughes , 585 U.S. ----, 138 S. … Given the fact that, as of 1986, the law did not clearly establish that malicious prosecution could form the basis of a § 1983 claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on Count IV.

Pautsch v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2024

Section 1608(e) requires that “the claimant establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). … to avoid “open[ing] the door to litigation against foreign governments that the Political Branches have not clearly authorized.”

Mowatt v. United States Parole Commission

815 F. Supp. 2d 199 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

Moore is also entitied to qualified immunity or has not been sufficiently served with process. 5 . … The Court therefore will not reach Defendants' argument that Warden Grayer is entitied to qualified immunity or has not been sufficiently served with process.

Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld

684 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

Yet, the Court is not at liberty to disregard clearly established, controlling precedent. See, e.g., United States v. … District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 652 (D.C.Cir.2001), the individual defendants in this case are also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity- 6 .