Case law

Montgomery v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2019

Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity therefore bars relief unless the plaintiff can establish both (1) the violation of a constitutional right and (2) that the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Oberwetter v. Hilliard

680 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2010

Qualified immunity protects a government official “ ‘from liability for money damages insofar as [the challenged] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … And second, “whether the right was clearly established.” Id.

Tax Analysts and Advocates v. Shultz

376 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 1974

Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 622 , 83 S.Ct. 999 , 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963) [the challenge by appellants] clearly falls within the ‘exception’ almost as broad as the ‘rule’ that ‘sovereign immunity does not prevent a suit against a state … The contrary is clearly established by Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 619-620 , 32 S.Ct. 340 , 56 L.Ed. 570 (1912); see Stark v.

Johnson v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2009

immunity. … They contend that because defendants are protected from qualified immunity, no ongoing controversy exists. (Defs.’ Mem. [34] at 3.) The Court disagrees.

True the Vote, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2014

The Supreme Court has clearly instructed that “[o]nce a defendant pleads a defense of qualified immunity, . . . the judge appropriately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery

Garcia v. District of Columbia

56 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 1999

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As to all Defendants, the defense of qualified immunity was rejected.

Caldwell v. Obama

6 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2013

Additionally, all the government officials named as defendants, by virtue of acting in an official capacity, enjoy qualified immunity against “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … “Qualified immunity is a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Bame v.

Pollack v. Duff

958 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2013

Plaintiff has not established the necessary predicate. … Pollack applied for and was qualified for three other attorney positions within the AO, and her applications were referred to the selecting official.

A & S Council Oil Co., Inc. v. Saiki

799 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 1992

Defendants’ actions are clearly capable of repetition. … However, unusual items will not be considered in establishing the FMP. C.

Davidson v. Megrota

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2019

Even if Jones is not protected by absolute judicial immunity, moreover, she would still be immune based on qualified immunity. … 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

Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

225 F. Supp. 3d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2014

to immunity.” … waived its sovereign immunity, Pet.

Chalabi v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

503 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2007

, and none of the Act’s exceptions to immunity applies. … As explained below, all the claims are clearly barred by the relevant statutes of limitations; accordingly, further jurisdictional discovery would be futile. B.

Mehari v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2020

conduct was 'clearly established at the time."' … Nor is Wilkes entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because the law clearly established that she lacked probable cause to arrest Mehari based on the record before l4 It is true, of course, that Mehari could have

Palmer v. Shultz

598 F. Supp. 382 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1984

The Court rejected the government’s argument that the use of current rates represented a claim for interest barred by sovereign immunity, instead finding that section 706(k) is a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. … Plaintiffs argue that this rate does not qualify as an “established billing rate” because it fails to reflect the market value of the firm’s legal services but instead reflects a choice “to cater[] to people who have very

Martin v. Ezeagu

816 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 1993

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability only when their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts was clearly established at least as early as 1977, when the Supreme Court decided Bounds v.

Rishikof v. Mortada

70 F. Supp. 3d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2014

He recommended that this Court find that Defendant Mortada does not qualify for common law foreign immunity, and therefore, further recommended that this Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss. … The Court noted that “[a]lthough Congress clearly intended to supersede the common-law regime for claims against foreign states, we find nothing in [FSIA’s] origin or aims to indicate that Congress similarly wanted to codify

Richardson v. Yellen

167 F. Supp. 3d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2016

violated my clearly established constitutional rights under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”). … It is also well established that common-law tort claims may not be pursued against the United States or its agencies absent a waiver of sovereign immunity. FDIC v.

Mazloum v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

522 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2007

The Supreme Court has made it clear that there are two inquiries involved in qualified immunity analysis. … The second step of the qualified immunity analysis is to determine whether “the [constitutional] right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Dougherty v. United States

156 F. Supp. 3d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 2016

official capacity qualifies as a suit against the government. … Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 676–77 (1974), and Plaintiff further fails to establish that either Maryland or Pennsylvania has waived its immunity for his claims for monetary damages, see Md.

Nikbin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

471 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2007

Int'l Nominees Establishment v. … Int'l Nominees Establishment, 693 F.2d at 1099 (“[T]he absence of immunity is a condition to the presence of subject matter jurisdiction ....