Case law

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

577 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

Circuit has explained, “[qjualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the … if so, whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Ellsberg v. Mitchell

670 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 1984

on the Supreme Court’s new qualified immunity test enunciated in Harlow v. … Harlow disposed of the “subjective” aspect of qualified immunity and held that courts should examine only the “objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to ‘clearly established’ law.”

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2021

Even if the Court concluded that Officer Gaton’s use of force was not objectively reasonable, he is entitled to qualified immunity so long as the use force did not violate “clearly established” law. … a “clearly established” right.

Jones v. Lieber

579 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … 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

Richardson v. U.S. Department of Interior

740 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Qualified immunity insulates officials from personal liability when their alleged tortious conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been aware … Violations of “Clearly Established” Right In Harlow , the Supreme Court held that to overcome an assertion of qualified immunity the constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff to have been violated must have been “clearly

Bolger v. District of Columbia

608 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Brown v. Fogle

867 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2012

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.

Broudy v. Mather

366 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

The applicable legal standard 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 court facing qualified immunity claims ordinarily engages in a two-step inquiry.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

245 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

“Qualified immunity prevents officials who violate the law from having to defend against lawsuits for money damages unless the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken gave those officials … Accordingly, under clearly established precedent, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because, on the undisputed facts, the officers would have had “fair warning” that they

Wesby v. District of Columbia

765 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 2014

“An officer is entitled to qualified immunity, despite having engaged in constitutionally deficient conduct, if, in doing so, she did not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Because the common-law privilege Defendants invoke overlaps with but is harder to establish than qualified immunity, the Defendants’ argument on that score “fails for essentially the same reasons already set forth.”

Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr.

685 F.3d 1110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2012

or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … The Court has explained, for example, that although “the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause,” that level of generality is too high for purposes of qualified immunity because

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

Individual Capacity With respect to the claims against him in his individual capacity, defendant Berry *36 argues that he is protected by qualified immunity “insofar as his ... conduct dues not violate clearly established … 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

Witchard v. Surampudi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

As a government official, Surampudi is, at minimum, entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Fletcher v. District of Columbia

481 F. Supp. 2d 156 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2007

Hence, the second step of the qualified immunity test — whether the constitutional right was clearly established — must be reached here. … The individual defendants are clearly entitled to qualified immunity here.

Washington v. Fenty

611 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

were violated were not clearly established. … A defense of qualified immunity fails only if the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

MOLINA-AVILES v. District of Columbia

824 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable officer would have known. … 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.’ ” Ortiz v.

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia

93 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

For acts to which qualified immunity may apply, 2 it held that the plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Accordingly the Court held that qualified immunity could be penetrated only on a showing of objective unreasonableness—the now familiar requirement of “clearly established” rights. Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Rockefeller v. United States Court of Appeals Office, for the Tenth Circuit Judges

248 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2003

The Supreme Court has established two avenues by which public officials may receive immunity from personal liability in a civil action for damages: absolute and qualified immunity. … A public official performing a discretionary function receives qualified immunity in a civil action, provided that his or her conduct does not violate “clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights” of which

Richards v. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jennifer Gelsomino

240 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

“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 … On the facts as currently alleged, then, Gelsomino is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated a clearly established constitutional right when she arrested Richards without a warrant or probable cause.

Baird v. Holton

806 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity “shields a government official from civil liability if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … See Ali, 2011 WL 2462851, at *4 (qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability when his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person