Case law

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

William C. Wardlaw v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal

1 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1993

Qualified immunity protects a government official from suits for damages if the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … In general, qualified immunity extends to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

Thus, an officer conducting a search “is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–44. … But even putting aside the different facts that case presented, a decision of a district court cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Green v. Security Assurance Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity “means that, at the time of the officer’s conduct, the law was ‘sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would understand that what he is doing’ is unlawful

Jacquelyn M. Chagnon v. Griffin Bell

642 F.2d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1980

defense only in an area of “clearly established” law. … Rather, the question is whether the conduct complained of transgressed “clearly established” constitutional limits.

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2024

A court should not define “clearly established law at a high level of generality,” id. … Officer Dorghoud is not entitled to relief on Counts I, III, or IV Even considering the body-worn camera footage, Officer Dorghoud has not established his entitlement to qualified immunity or qualified privilege

Madison v. Cruz

359 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2019

The First Circuit has adopted a two-part test to assess qualified immunity. … I find that had Defendant McDonald been aware that Plaintiff was outed as an informant and previously assaulted but declined to act to ensure Plaintiff's safety, it would qualify as a violation of Plaintiff's clearly established

Bowser v. Smith

288 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no "clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff's assailant through the prison cell-block." Smith Mot. … "In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish" that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v.

Pinson v. United States Department of Justice

246 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified Immunity The DOJ asserts, cursorily, that Dignam and Samuels are shielded from liability by qualified immunity.12 MTD at 8–9. … As discussed below, the Count concludes that Pinson had a clearly established right. The qualified immunity defense thus turns on whether there was a violation of that right.

Kenneth W. Martin v. John P. Malhoyt, John Doe(s) Shirley Ann Stevens v. David H. Stover, John Doe

830 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1987

The district court recited the Harlow standard: qualified immunity shields government officials as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.

Ronkin v. Vihn

71 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2014

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 … Put succinctly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” Saucier v.

McGregor v. Greer

748 F. Supp. 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1990

Therefore, in order to determine whether qualified immunity attaches, we must first determine whether plaintiff alleges violation of any clearly established rights. … Thus, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not have a “clearly established” right to privacy in the lobby of her apartment. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

Davis v. Billington

775 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

Qualified Immunity As noted previously in this Memorandum Opinion, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied. 2.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from suit for civil damages unless a plaintiff shows that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established … If there is a constitutional violation, the second question is: Whether the right violated was “clearly established?” Id.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards’s failure to remedy … Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[] of which a reasonable person would have

Gaubert v. Gray

747 F. Supp. 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1990

Violations of “Clearly Established” Rights 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 … action is a violation) violates a clearly established right.”

Freeman v. Fallin

310 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2004

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.” … establish that the urinalysis testing at issue here qualifies as a search.

Dukore v. District of Columbia

799 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 25, 2015

. 3 The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, we need not broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.

Barham v. Salazar

556 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 2009

United States, “[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 … If that question is answered in the affirmative, the court then asks whether the constitutional right was clearly established. Ramsey, 434 F.3d at 572 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ).

Johnson v. District of Columbia

528 F.3d 969 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2008

and  7 the qualified immunity defense. … what is clearly established law.