Case law

Weise v. Jenkins

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2011

immunity because they were not personally involved in the decision to remove Plaintiffs from the event and because the ejection did not violate Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. … Both motions raised, among other arguments, the defense of qualified immunity.

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.

Minnick v. Carlile

946 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2013

At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, would establish that the defendant acted outside the scope of her employment. See id. at 41 (citation omitted). … Clearly, responding to the questions of her supervisor was incidental to Defendant's employment at DHS. In other words, Defendant's answers to Ms.

Ballard v. Holinka

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

Qualified Immunity “[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 … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Berio v. EEOC

446 F. Supp. 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 1978

As to the immunity issue, it does not appear that the defendant enjoys absolute immunity so as to preclude the action. … As was noted earlier, in certain instances executive officials sued in their individual capacities are only accorded qualified immunity.

Butera v. District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 1999

Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 856 (2d Cir.1996) (whether inmate diabetic denied treatment was conscience-shocking was jury question). 5 Qualifíed Immunity Turning now to whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established … , the Court addresses the Defendant police officers’ qualified immunity defense. 6 “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are ...

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.

Rimkus v. Islamic Republic of Iran

750 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2010

Here, plaintiffs Complaint does not clearly articulate a particular theory of recovery, but rather alleges facts necessary to establish the five basic elements of a cause of action under § 1605A. … These acts all clearly fall within the definition of provision of material support or resources.

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 .

Al-Zahrani v. Donald Rumsfeld

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

immunity. 563 F.3d at 530 (holding that “qualified immunity insulates the defendants from plaintiffs’ Bivens claims” because “[n]o reasonable government official would have been on notice [before the Supreme Court’s ruling … Yet, the Court is not at liberty to disregard clearly established, controlling precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Torres, 115 F.3d 1033, 1036 (D.C.

Doe v. District of Columbia

958 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2013

Qualified Immunity Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … “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

Gans v. Ahmed

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2026

As to her excessive force claim, Officer Ahmed is entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff has identified no case that would place the constitutionality of his conduct “beyond debate.” Dist. of Columbia v. … Ct. 926, 930 (2026) (“To find that a right is clearly established, courts generally ‘need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances . . . was held to have violated’ the Constitution.”)

Richards v. Gelsomino

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2019

of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the purported right “‘was clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

Burns v. Georgetown University Medical Center

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2019

With the passage of the Act, Section 44-802 clearly expanded the peer review privilege by extending immunity to those sharing information with any of the three categories of entities in Section 44-801(6). … established that any of the relevant U.S.

Kizas v. Webster

492 F. Supp. 1135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 1980

qualified immunity in Halperin v. … The Court noted that the Supreme Court had adopted for federal officials the “objective and subjective standards for qualified immunity” of Wood v.

Fludd v. U.S. Secret Service

646 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 1986

II It is agreed that the individual defendants are entitled to summary judgment if they had qualified immunity, and also that the qualified immunity issue is govered by Harlow v. … The Harlow decision changed the law of qualified immunity.

Arthur v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 2020

“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 … “Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v.

Norman E. Duquette, Inc. v. Commissioner

110 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2000

doing violates [a *23 clearly established statutory or constitutional] right.” … Agent Grimes did not violate a clearly established right. Plaintiffs’ pleas for further discovery on this issue are unwarranted.

Zuza v. Office of the High Representaitve

107 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2015

As a general matter, in order to qualify as an “international organization” under the Act, an entity must satisfy two criteria provided in section 1—participation in some manner by the United States and designation by the … 3 Throughout his briefing, Zuza asserts that Defendants have the burden to establish their immunity, relying on a line of cases decided under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”).

Fre v. Monk

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2017

This claim must fail because Officer Monk is protected by qualified immunity. 8  “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.