Case law

Ben Kalka v. Kathleen Hawk,appellees

215 F.3d 90 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

II A Qualified 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 time of their actions … B To repeat, qualified immunity shields these defendants from liability for civil damages if their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time of

Renay Hunter v. The District of Columbia

943 F.2d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

clearly established at the time of the alleged beating in 1986. … Because Hunter’s complaint alleges conduct coming between Norris and Martin , his claim is subject to the officer’s substantively distinct qualified immunity defense that arises from the change in the “clearly established

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).

Rasul v. Myers

563 F.3d 527 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

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)).

Marietta Robinson v. Sarah Pezzat

818 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 2016

Seeking to avoid this result, the District urges us to affirm on an alternative ground, i.e., that Pezzat is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established law. … In the district court, the District of Columbia argued only that Robinson suffered no constitutional injury; it never argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on clearly established law grounds.

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.

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.

Kimberlin, Brett C. v. Quinlan, Michael J.

207 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1999

qualified immunity issue. … to qualified immunity.

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

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2015

that were clearly established at the time.’” … Glover did not violate any clearly-established right under the Fourth Amendment, all three individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the Saucier test.

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

Cosenza v. City of Worcester

355 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants similarly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims. … Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Pitt, Christopher v. DC

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. … immunity on these claims because this right was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue in this case.

Harris v. District of Columbia

932 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1991

This obligation, according to the court, was clearly established and appellants were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. See id. at 17-19. … The concurrence also affords qualified immunity "on the additional ground that, even if the right was clearly established, the facts ... do not make out a violation of that right.” Concurring op. at 363.

K.O. v. Sessions, III

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2020

On the “clearly established” prong, “[t]he dispositive question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’’’ Abassi, 137 S. Ct. at 1866 (quoting Mullenix v. … conduct is clearly established.