Case law

William G. Moore, Jr. v. Joseph B. Valder

65 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

Furthermore, it has not been clearly established that malicious prosecution violates any constitutional or statutory right. 11 Accord *196 ingly, the postal inspectors’ qualified immunity defeats Moore’s malicious prosecution … Qualified immunity protects a government official who performs discretionary functions from liability for civil damages if he can show that his actions did not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

Musonza v. Costanzo

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2026

That is because the Court resolved the excessive force claim on the clearly established prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … An officer might, therefore, be entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right, but nevertheless not be entitled to the qualified privilege because their use of “force was not objectively

Sheffield v. Pieroway

361 F. Supp. 3d 160 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2019

Qualified Immunity Resil asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which plaintiff opposes. … Qualified Immunity Pieroway contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Ford v. Donovan

891 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity “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 … Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194 n.12 (1984) (“officials may lose their immunity by violating ‘clearly established statutory . . . rights.’”) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818).

Freeman v. Fallin

254 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2003

Qualified immunity “shield[s 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.” … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

Johnson v. Williams

584 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

In this case, however, even if the law on anonymous stops had been clearly established, the officers would still be entitled to *105 immunity because the uncontroverted evidence shows that they did not know the tip was anonymous … Qualified Immunity From Excessive Force Claim The officers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs claim of *106 excessive force.

District of Columbia v. Minor

740 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1999

In suits for unlawful arrest brought under § 1983, qualified immunity shields police officers from liability if “ ‘a reasonable officer could have believed [the arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and … The instruction given to the jury on qualified immunity stated: “Officer Kelsey is shielded from liability for civil damages as long as he did not intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violate clearly established statutory

Montel v. City of Springfield

386 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2019

As this Court has but recently explained: *75 "Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id.

Wesby v. District of Columbia

816 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2016

We and the dissent agree on two other clearly established points of law. 1. … As discussed in the court’s opinion and in the text, supra 98-99, that is a misstatement of clearly established law.

Loumiet v. United States of America

255 F. Supp. 3d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2017

, and qualified immunity. 1. … basis of qualified immunity.

Richardson v. Dist. of Columbia

322 F. Supp. 3d 175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity-no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Halperin v. Kissinger

578 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 1984

The doctrine *234 of qualified immunity now focuses on whether a government official’s conduct “violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … judgment based on qualified immunity. .

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established … II “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Jones v. Yanta

610 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Qualified Immunity “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not vio *43 late clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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

Moore v. Hartman

644 F.3d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2011

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 … federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.”

Bailey v. United States Marshal Service

584 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Ricky Brogsdale v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Donyell A. Marsh v. Marion S. Barry, Jr.

926 F.2d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1991

legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” … Hollowell, 714 F.2d 1372, 1376 (5th Cir.1983) (inmates’ rights were “clearly established” by earlier court order, such that breach of that order could not be within officials’ qualified immunity).

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

254 F. Supp. 3d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2017

established right had occurred and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … Consequently, whether qualified immunity applies “‘generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the [official's] action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time.’”

Williams v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time of the violation. … of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity ifthe right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of the violation, February 22, 2014.

Estate of Gaither v. District of Columbia

833 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … qualified immunity appropriate.