Case law

Krieger v. United States Department of Justice

529 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2008

immunity. … To determine whether a federal official is subject to qualified immunity, a court must engage in a two-step analysis.

CLOONAN v. Holder

602 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

The Attorney General’s certification establishes a presumption that Barnes acted within the scope of his employment when the allegedly defamatory statements were made. … to the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Narce v. Mervilus

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2023

In suits brought under Section 1983, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … cause is a ‘clearly established’ constitutional violation,” Turpin v.

Wood v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2017

Wood under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. That prong entitles defendants to immunity so long as the violation in question was not “clearly established.” Messerschmidt v. … It is clearly established that punching, kicking, and stepping on a handcuffed and submissive arrestee is excessive force.

Phillips v. Mabus

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2019

Bosworth violated Plaintiffs’ “clearly established rights”; therefore, both government employees are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pls.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 101 at 31-32. … “The proponent of [the] purported right has the ‘burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was 43 clearly established’ for qualified-immunity purposes.”

Misko v. United States

453 F. Supp. 513 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1978

And even assuming that such a cause of action exists, plaintiff concedes that he would encounter at least a qualified official immunity defense. See Henderson v. … And, as noted in Stencel, upholding this sort of immunity claim will not leave servicemen without a remedy for actual injuries: “the Veterans’ Benefits Act establishes, as a substitute for tort liability,' a statutory ‘no

Verizon Washington, D.C., Inc. v. United States of America

254 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

The plaintiff bears the burden “of establishing both the court’s statutory jurisdiction and the government’s waiver of its sovereign immunity.” Am. Road & Transp. Builders Ass’n, 865 F. … Like qualified immunity, the independent contractor exception is a threshold bar that must be considered at the outset of litigation.

Sharma v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

58 F. Supp. 3d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2014

But Congress clearly specified that governmental plans are not subject to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) (2012), see Shaw, 463 U.S. at 99, and the Court declines plaintiff’s invitation to disturb that policy pronouncement. … [plaintiff] was no longer employed by [defendant] when he submitted the materials to the EEO investigation and therefore does not qualify as an ‘employee’ under Title VII”).

Sanders v. District of Columbia

601 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

Defendants’ argument as to futility on the qualified immunity question is doubtful in light of the Court’s earlier denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity. See Sanders v. … immunity.

Brown v. District of Columbia

638 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 1986

Briggs, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the Supreme Court discussed the qualified immunity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , that police officers enjoy in an arrest warrant context. … Accordingly, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Alston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

747 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2010

To qualify under this exception, the prisoner must show that the action is connected to the imminent danger, Pettus v. … Section 1915A(b)(2) allows for dismissal if the plaintiff seeks a monetary award from a defendant who is clearly immune from relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Alston III, however, contained no discussion of immunity.

Kim v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea

950 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2013

Cir. 2002); see also Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, 693 F.2d 1094, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“[T]he absence of immunity is a condition to the presence of subject matter jurisdiction.”). … Moreover, this case qualifies for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Cause of Action Institute v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2019

Of course, this void is not surprising, as it is well established that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to valid FOIA claims. See Hajro v. U.S. … And CoA Institute has clearly satisfied the “quite straightforward” and “relatively easy” requirement of “plead[ing] the . . . elements of a FOIA claim[,]” Campaign for Accountability, 278 F.

United States v. Niarchos

125 F. Supp. 214 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1954

The test clearly cannot be that the indictment must be brought under the Shipping Act or whatever act contains an immunity provision. … The investigation may have indicated violations of § 1001 more clearly than any Shipping Act provisions.

Estate of Zouhair El Halabi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2024

But under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), the defendants are still presumptively immune from suit unless the plaintiffs can show that an exception to immunity applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … Iran and MOIS therefore lack immunity from these claims. The FSIA imposes two additional requirements to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

United States v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

538 F. Supp. 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1982

The railroads first advance the argument that the acts which allegedly establish venue were immunized by section 5a of the Interstate Commerce Act and, as immune acts, they cannot provide the basis for venue. … However, as discussed above, the ICC has no authority to immunize predatory agreements. Whether or not there was, in fact, predation is a question which a judge and jury are clearly capable of answering.

Eckert v. Fitzgerald

119 F.R.D. 297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 1988

DISCUSSION It is well-established that the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure are to be accorded liberal treatment. In Re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 809 (D.C.Cir.1982), citing Hickman v. … Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), recognized a qualified immunity from discovery for the attorney’s work product.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2023

Qualified Immunity Regardless of whether Jackson makes out a plausible claim of false arrest, the Officers nonetheless contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Officers’ Mot. Dismiss at 6–7. … clearly established law.

Sonitrol of Fresno, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

629 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 1986

The Court established a two-pronged test to determine the applicability of the doctrine in California Retail Liquor Dealers v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. at *1094 105, 100 S.Ct. at 943 . … In order to qualify for state action immunity [f]irst, the challenged restraint must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy;” [and] second, the policy must be “actively supervised” by the

Darui v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

Thus, Grafeld’s declaration is sufficient to establish the “logical” or “plausible” conclusion, see Wolf, 473 F.3d at 375, that emails between attorneys at DOJ and State discussing plaintiff’s hearing on sovereign immunity … However, plaintiff cannot establish the third element.