Case law

Moore, William v. Hartman, Michael

388 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 2004

TATEL, Circuit Judge: Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil damages ‘‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, Moore has alleged the violation of a constitutional right, precluding summary judgment under the first element of the qualified immunity test. Was the Law Clearly Established?

Gordon v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024

App. 1998)—are not binding, nor do they muddle the clearly established principles set forth above so as to support the District’s claim of qualified immunity. … proving that the defendant “violated clearly established rights” and is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Farmer, Dee v. Moritsugu, Kenneth

163 F.3d 610 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1998

Analysis A.Qualified Immunity Principles It is well-established that qualified immunity shields gov- ernment officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Moritsugu is protected by qualified immunity unless Farm- er's allegations could sustain a finding that his conduct violat- ed clearly established law. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818.

Jean-Gabriel Bernier v. Jeff Allen

38 F.4th 1145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2022

Allen’s decision violated no clearly established Eighth Amendment right, we hold that the doctor is entitled to qualified immunity from Bernier’s damages claim. … Nevertheless, the majority rests its conclusion on the clearly established prong of qualified immunity.

Bernstein v. Roberts

405 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2005

The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. … Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .

Dickey v. United States of America

174 F. Supp. 3d 366 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

However, qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Defendants argue that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case was whether it was clearly established that Officer Alexander was prohibited from alleged touching or manipulating

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

The Supreme Court established the current qualified immunity analysis in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … As discussed, the second half of the two-part qualified immunity analysis focuses on whether or not the constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, such that defendants knew or should have

Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

in question . . . was clearly established.” … were clearly established.

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.

Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner

835 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 2016

Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation? … Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, albeit for a different reason: It was not clearly established in Maryland in 2005 that the Fourth Amendment prohibits

Elkins v. District of Columbia

690 F.3d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

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 … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Christopher G. Pitt, Sr. And Tela Hansom-Pitt v. District of Columbia

491 F.3d 494 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir.2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established ... is a pure question of law....”); Williams v. Ala. … The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.

Olaniyi v. District of Columbia

416 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2006

However, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “The threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether [the] plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v.

Kaplan v. Pointer

501 A.2d 1269 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

. at 2701 (absolute immunity deemed “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office”), while Harlow held that a presidential aide was entitled only to a qualified immunity, 457 U.S. at 809-14, 102 S.Ct. … Forsyth, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (granting former Attorney General of the United States qualified rather than absolute immunity from suit for damages arising out of allegedly unconstitutional conduct

Bowser v. Smith

314 F. Supp. 3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 2018

Bowser's *32 pleadings fail to carry his burden to state a claim of violation of clearly established law, and that his claims must therefore be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. … Smith violated the Constitution, qualified immunity fails only if his conduct violated clearly established law in those particular circumstances. Pearson , 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

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

Jared Fishman v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2026

The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, ruling that clearly established law required the officers to release Fishman before they did. … For qualified-immunity purposes, the question is whether the officers’ actions were so manifestly unreasonable as to violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles.

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.