Case law

Klay v. Panetta

924 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2013

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 5 … at 34, and that is the teaching of Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 677 (stating that to determine “whether there is a violation of clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, purpose rather than knowledge is required”)

Frazier v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave the following succinct overview of the qualified immunity doctrine: The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability … established” at the time of the violation. 3 It is hard to understand why the Defendants waited until two years after this lawsuit was filed to raise the issue of qualified immunity.

Torossian v. Hayo

45 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1999

Bivens Actions and Qualified Immunity for Public Officials In Bivens v. … The Court finds that defendants’ qualified immunity shields them from any civil liability to plaintiffs because the actions of the defendants, as alleged, did not constitute violations of “clearly established” rights under

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.

Fishman v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2025

Qualified Immunity All defendants assert qualified immunity. … Therefore, if defendants wish to avail themselves of qualified immunity, they cannot have violated a constitutional right that is clearly established. See id.

Winder v. Erste

905 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2012

However, even if a plaintiff can establish that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, a defendant seeking qualified immunity can still demonstrate that there were extraordinary … Erste argues that he is protected by qualified immunity from Winder's procedural due process claim because it is not "clearly established" that Winder had a property interest in his continued employment when Erste terminated

Hawkins v. Boone

786 F. Supp. 2d 328 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“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 … In such a situation, they should not lose their qualified immunity. See Atherton v.

Bernier v. Trump

299 F. Supp. 3d 150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2018

The court held: Plaintiff's Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations … As noted above, this court dismissed Plaintiff's Bivens claim on the second "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity test. See Pearson v.

Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan

6 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1993

Since then the Court has made it clear that qualified immunity should be granted, and suit dismissed, where the plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at … More recently, in Siegert , we clearly explained how the standard applies to a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity: Where the defendant’s subjective intent is an essential component of plaintiffs claim, once

James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

983 F.2d 253 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1993

the defendants therefore had qualified immunity from suit. … protected by qualified immunity.

Wormley v. United States

601 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

is not clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Shaw v. District of Columbia

944 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2013

The USMS defendants claim they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of the searches violated a clearly established constitutional right.25 (USMS Mem. at 15.) … Conboy, Kates and Quicksey all argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because none of these actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.

ESTATE OF GAITHER EX REL. GAITHER v. District of Columbia

655 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as then-conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

683 F. Supp. 824 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1987

The Court now briefly elaborates on the claims of qualified immunity. … In Harlow the Supreme Court recognized that governmental officials may be entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

David v. District of Columbia

436 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

However, “[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 … her clearly established Fourth Amendment rights under color of state law.

Chagnon v. Bell

468 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1979

These holdings clarify the scope of acts for which officials are entitled to qualified immunity. … In view of the state of the law at the time defendants acted, it is clear that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated by defendants were anything but “clearly established.”

Linares v. Jones

551 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2008

“If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” … Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 . “ ‘[Clearly established’ for purposes of qualified immunity means that ‘[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

Dormu v. District of Columbia

795 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Masel v. Barrett

707 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1989

The “clearly established” rule, however, cannot be so broadly defined that plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into “a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of … Defendant’s contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity because there was no “clearly established” rule of law to govern his conduct at that time also fails.