Case law

Lucio v. Yeutter

798 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1992

To overcome the immunity; a plaintiff must show “that the defendant violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’ ”, Siegert, 895 F.2d at 801 (quoting Harlow … Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead in order to survive a qualified immunity challenge. 14 Plaintiff has not shown that the individual defendants violated any clearly established right.

SACE S.p.A. v. Republic of Paraguay

243 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2017

World Wide Minerals, Ltd., 296 F.3d at 1162 (requiring that a foreign state must have “clearly and unambiguously” expressed its intent to waive its sovereign immunity). … which unquestionably qualifies as a public act.

Parker v. Grand Hyatt Hotel

124 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2000

Count V (False Arrest) To establish qualified immunity from a claim of false arrest, the police must first demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. See Saidi v. Washington Metro. … Count VI (Malicious Prosecution) Similarly, to establish qualified immunity from a claim for malicious prosecution, the police must demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

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 -10- immunity. … Banks’ vehicle stop and arrest of Bostic was well within the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment and therefore Banks could not have known he was violating a clearly established constitutional right; indeed,

Burnham v. Com. of Mass.

299 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2018

Bringing this action in federal court implicates the Commonwealth's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … In order to establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability, Burnham must establish that he: suffers from a physical or mental impairment that affects life activities that are 'major,' i.e. , 'of central importance

Rodriguez v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity In addition, qualified immunity bars claims against public officials for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Compl., ¶¶ 49, 56, 57, violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

319 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2004

First, the act of extending the deadlines clearly involves “an element of judgment or choice.” Macharía, 334 F.3d at 65 . … Moreover, the decision as to when and whether to take enforcement action against unapproved drugs qualifies as discretionary.

Herbage v. Meese

747 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1990

immunity. … The British Defendants have claimed sovereign immunity. 10 In the instant case, however, before reaching the matter of whether the FSIA is applicable, it is necessary to establish that these are officials of these states,

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2019

In Wesby, the Court addressed issues related to probable cause and the “clearly established law” standard in the qualified immunity context, not the principles of causation in the Fourth Amendment seizure context that Defendant … Courts have consistently analyzed an officer- defendant’s “just following orders” defense to a § 1983 action under the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity framework, not as a potential barrier

Sampson v. District of Columbia Retirement Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2025

have said so clearly. … And “[p]ursuant to” that letter, she “was summarily put on administrative leave”—which itself may qualify as an adverse action. Id. ¶ 73; see Stewart v. U.S.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

598 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2009

This argument fails because “the mere fact that records pertain to an individual’s activities does not necessarily qualify them for exemption.” Id. at 894-95 . … The extra burden established by Favish only applies when the requestor asserts government negligence or improper conduct. 541 U.S. at 174 , 124 S.Ct. 1570 . Judicial Watch makes no such assertion here.

Committee of Blind Vendors v. District of Columbia

695 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 1988

Plaintiffs’ counsel appears to be qualified, and has not been challenged by defendants. … It is not clear whether states waive their immunity by participating in the Randolph-Sheppard Act program.

Lyles v. Hughes

83 F. Supp. 3d 315 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's *326 claims. See Dels.' Mem. at 9. … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established

Jackson v. Metropolitan Police Department District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … “Because it is well-established that ‘an arrest without probable cause violates the [F]ourth [A]mendment,’ the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that probable

Royster-Clark Agribusiness, Inc. v. Johnson

391 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2005

“It is to be *24 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … As subsection 307(b)(1) provides no jurisdiction in this Court, it is impossible for this case to qualify for the waiver of sovereign immunity.

COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers

558 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2008

Miers is not entitled to absolute immunity, a qualified immunity analysis should apply. See Tr. at 125-26. … The qualified immunity inquiry, however, does not fit comfortably in the present context.

Stoddard v. Wynn

168 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2016

Parole Commission and Absolute Immunity It is well established that “parole board officials, like judges, are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages when they serve a quasi-adjudicative function … But the alternative of qualifying [absolute] immunity would disserve the broader public interest.”). Mr.

Lang v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

immunity, she has failed to establish a basis for municipal liability. 1. … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right” that was “‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2009

Nor may the Court conclude that Officer Ha is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … “the existence of qualified immunity will depend on the particular facts”).

Jo v. District of Columbia

582 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2008

Defendants, however, have not claimed qualified immunity from suit in this case. See generally Defs.’ Mot. & Reply. … In the absence of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may assert a § 1983 claim against any individual who was personally and directly involved in the alleged violation. See Cameron v.