Case law

Smith v. Nixon

582 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1984

Sullivan and Cartha DeLoach: Qualified Immunity The remaining defendants move for summary judgment under the qualified immunity doctrine established in Harlow, supra. … of qualified immunity.

Jones v. United States of America

934 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2013

Qualified Immunity Officer Kadiev asserts the defense of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Hunter v. … 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

Reiver v. District of Columbia

925 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2013

Since the Court finds that the police conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established rights, the officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and the motion will … “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

Fletcher v. United States Parole Commission

550 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2008

In conducting the qualified immunity analysis, the Court assumed that the facts alleged by Fletcher would establish a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and focused its inquiry on whether, under “clearly established” … Finding that the law was not clearly established on this issue at the time his reparole was denied in 2000, the Court held that qualified immunity applied. Id.

Fernandors v. District of Columbia

382 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2005

Stressing the threshold nature of the qualified immunity inquiry, the Court observed as follows: A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is “clearly established … Therefore, the only question for the Court is whether Officer Fenton’s alleged conduct violated plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights so that he would not have qualified immunity.

Bloem v. Unknown Department of the Interior Employees

920 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2013

“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 … Herman, 983 F.2d 107, 110 (8th Cir. 1993) (finding a “clearly established liberty interest” for qualified-immunity purposes where trial court had issued order suspending defendant’s prison sentence, and finding it “not

Trifax Corp. v. District of Columbia

53 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 1999

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis requires the Court to consider whether the individually named defendants “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … As such, Plaintiff is simply unable to establish that Defendants Gaskins and Thomas violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Frazier v. Williams

620 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Callahan, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials … Consequently, she is entitled to qualified immunity. B.

Abdullah v. Washington

437 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2006

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants contend that the Eight Amendment claim against them should be dismissed based on qualified immunity. … the violation is established, whether the right was clearly established.

Greene v. Cabral

323 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

"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." … For a right to have been clearly established, such that qualified immunity does not shield an official from liability, "the right's contours [must have been] sufficiently definite that any reasonable official *107 in the

Brown v. Fogle

819 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Bame v. … "If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity." Id.

Beg Investments, LLC v. Alberti

34 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials, who are sued in their individual capacity for money damages, for “conduct [that] does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … That is certainly the case here. 16  The Court thus turns to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether it was clearly established, in June

McGinnis v. District of Columbia

65 F. Supp. 3d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2014

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity “‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Butera v. … “Clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity means that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right.” Shaw, 944 F.

Fox v. Government of the District of Columbia

924 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2013

Fox’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … “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

McDonald v. Kempthorne

831 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as  - 21 - their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … and whether that right was clearly established.

Fenwick v. United States of America

926 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2013

Fenwick’s clearly established rights. The Court therefore does not find the defendants entitled to qualified immunity at this juncture. 1. … Clearly Established Right With respect to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly established at the time of this incident that shooting a fleeing suspect who is not presently

Johnson v. Williams

699 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time

Williamson v. Cox

952 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2013

was clearly established at the time an action occurred. . . .’”). … The qualified immunity analysis “‘turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.’” Youngbey v.

Afifi v. Holder

101 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2015

Qualified Immunity Shields the Individual Defendants from the Plaintiff’s Bivens Claims “Qualified immunity is ‘a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly … Howards, the Supreme Court declined to accept the proposition that a Circuit’s own authority can be the dispositive source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See 132 S.

CHS Industries, LLC v. United States Customs & Border Protection

653 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: 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 would have known.”