Case law

Rasul v. Rumsfeld

433 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2006

Furthermore, because the defendants’ alleged actions violate rights clearly established at the time the defendants allegedly committed them, they are not entitled to any qualified immunity. … The Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that even if RFRA applies in GTMO, that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because its application in GTMO was not clearly established

Alexis v. District of Columbia

77 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 1999

The “Right” Which Must Have Been “Clearly Established” The plaintiffs contend that qualified immunity does not apply, because Mr. … Williams acted in disregard of clearly established rights. Accordingly, Mr. Williams is entitled to qualified immunity as to his statements at the January 1997 press conference. D.

Polk v. District of Columbia

121 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2000

When the defendant violates a clearly established right of which a reasonable person should have known, he is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Valdes nevertheless may be entitled to qualified immunity if the right he allegedly violated was not “clearly established” at the time the violation occurred.

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … The court thus cannot say that binding precedent at the time clearly established that Officer Whitehead acted unlawfully.

Davis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2016

In addition, as set forth above, such law is clearly established. Afari is thus not now protected by qualified immunity on Count I either. C. … Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1351 (10th Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment rule against unnecessary damage during search is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity).

Kyle v. Bedlion

177 F. Supp. 3d 380 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2016

violated a clearly established right[.]” Muhammad, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 122. Therefore, Bedlion is entitled to qualified immunity on Kyle’s excessive force claim. B. … immunity on a false-arrest claim). 8 Kyle’s brief in opposition to Defendants’ qualified -immunity motion does not establish otherwise.

White v. Bagshaw

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2026

Overcoming a claim of qualified immunity requires a plaintiff to show both “[1] that an official violated a constitutional right and [2] that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Doe v. … Bagshaw claims qualified immunity over the supervisor liability claim, so White must again show both a violation of a constitutional right and that the asserted right was clearly established.

Ulysse v. Stokes

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

As a result, Ulysse does not point to a case clearly establishing that Al-Hinawi’s alleged conduct here violated federal law, which entitles to Officer to qualified immunity. Ulysse turns to Taylor v. … By comparison to the objective qualified immunity test under § 1983, Hargraves v. D.C., 134 F.

Driever v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2021

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 … Jan. 15, 1997). 7 was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.” Daugherty v. Sheer, 891 F.3d 386, 390 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Halcomb v. Woods

767 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

Woods’ conduct to be in accordance with clearly established law, see Halcomb v. … He consequently has failed to show that he is entitled to qualified immunity. V.

Elkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2009

seizure was clearly established). … Thus, they do not assert qualified immunity. Instead, some of the Individual Defendants contend that they were not personally involved in the seizure. -17- Messrs.

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

258 F. Supp. 3d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2017

WMATA’s first argument—that there is no statute, regulation, or policy on point—is clearly unavailing. … rely on “SSOP 46 alone” to establish this standard.

Sudah v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2025

And if he fails to show that his asserted right was clearly established after a defendant officer asserts qualified immunity, courts properly grant the officer’s motion to dismiss. E.g., Turpin v. Ray, 319 F. … Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of a complaint on qualified-im- munity grounds when the plaintiff had not shown that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the purported violation).

Mwimanzi v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2022

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” … Turning to the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the Court concludes that there was a robust consensus of authority as of January 2019 to clearly establish that such an excessively forceful and invasive search

Halcomb v. Wmata

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Mr. Woods argues that he “has qualified immunity both for the arrest [of Ms. Halcomb] itself and for the limited amount of force necessary to effectuate the arrest.” Mot. at 7. … were clearly established at the time the action was taken” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Patterson v. United States of America

999 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine At the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Bloem, 920 F. … immunity grounds, because the relevant right is not “clearly established” or otherwise, cannot be accepted.

Robinson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

858 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2012

because plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. … Only discretionary activity is protected by sovereign immunity. Id.

Gill v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The manner in which courts are permitted to resolve qualified-immunity defenses protects from unnecessary constitutional conjecture: “[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly … To begin, the named Marshals are clearly entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional questions in this case fall well short of being “clearly established.”

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2011

were clearly established at the time the action was taken” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). … A defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity is a question of law to be decided by the court, see id., although sometimes, as in this case, the facts establishing what the challenged conduct was are legitimately in dispute

Hutchins v. McKay

285 F. Supp. 3d 420 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2018

No principle of qualified immunity will protect them. Second, the undisputed facts of record will not support an invocation of qualified immunity based on the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment. … Nevertheless, he concluded that, given the "nebulous" boundaries of the exception, the officers had qualified immunity, as a reasonable officer would not have known, in that factual context, that he was violating a clearly