Case law

Jones v. Kirchner

66 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2014

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Defs.’ Mem. at 34-35. I agree. … Qualified immunity does not protect “those who knowingly violate the law,” Malley v.

Jones v. District of Columbia

892 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity is a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

District Council 20, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. District of Columbia

150 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2001

For purposes of qualified immunity, a right is “clearly established” if “the contours of that right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” … immunity as to these claims which have not been clearly established in this or any other circuit.

Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky

697 F.2d 309 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1982

Qualified Immunity Ratliff’s investigative and administrative activities are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. As we noted earlier, Harlow makes the test for qualified immunity an objective one. … 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.

Corrigan v. District of Columbia

841 F.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 8, 2016

The district court ruled there had been no violation of a clearly established right, concluding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. II. … was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Anderson-Bey v. District of Columbia

466 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2006

The Court tentatively concludes, however, that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claims, on the basis that the Eighth Amendment rights in question were not clearly established … “Qualified immunity generally shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Komongnan v. U.S. Marshals Service

471 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2006

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 .

Daul v. Meckus

897 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 1995

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are “generally shielded from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The availability of qualified immunity typically 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 it was taken.

Flythe v. District of Columbia

4 F. Supp. 3d 216 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2014

But if there is a constitutional violation, the court must ask the second question, which is: was the right violated “clearly established?” Id. … Moreover, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts regarding the constitutional violation prong of the qualified immunity analysis suggest that Officer Vazquez’s conduct violated clearly established

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Thomas v. Fulwood, Jr.

128 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2015

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, defendants argue that, even if Fulwood does not enjoy absolute quasi- judicial immunity, he would be protected by qualified immunity. See generally Defs.’ Mem. at 26-31. … ” and whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

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.

L. Patrick Gray, III v. Griffin Bell

712 F.2d 490 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1983

The second, qualified immunity, 8 is in the nature of an affirmative defense and protects an official from liability only if he can show that his actions did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional … Fitzgerald, 102 S.Ct. at 2738 (qualified immunity is available to “government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct” does not violate clearly established law).

Ogden v. District of Columbia

676 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 1987

Defendant Manjoras moved to dismiss the section 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity and the common law claims on the basis of absolute immunity. … In Anderson , the Court made it clear that a qualified immunity analysis requires close examination of whether under the particular facts presented a clearly established right was violated.

Raynor v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2022

established” prong of qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the qualified-immunity analysis for these Defendants begins and ends with the “clearly established” prong.

McDonald v. City of Bos.

334 F. Supp. 3d 429 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2018

"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 … "[T]he second, 'clearly established' step of the qualified immunity analysis ... in turn, has two aspects." Maldonado v. Fontanes , 568 F.3d 263 , 269 (1st Cir. 2009).

Cordero v. Pack

368 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2019

Finally, the court finds neither Haecker nor Wynn is entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. 2 "A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or … An official is protected by qualified immunity if the plaintiff (1) established a violation of a constitutional right and (2) at the time of the alleged violation the law regarding that violation was 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

Hardy v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2009

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from [personal] liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … right,” and “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.”

Dorsey v. District of Columbia

234 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2017

“Although government officials may be sued in their individual capacities for damages . . . qualified immunity protects officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … As to the Defendant Officers, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if “a reasonable officer could have believed that [his actions] were lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers