Case law

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).

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

734 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2013

In Bame , this Court, addressing only the “clearly established” stage of the qualified immunity analysis, found Dillard entitled to qualified immunity for Fourth Amendment claims brought by male plaintiffs — claims otherwise … As a result, Dillard is entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment right he is accused of violating was not clearly established at the time of any violation.

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

O'CALLAGHAN v. District of Columbia

741 F. Supp. 273 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1990

Nevertheless, because their conduct resulted in the violation of “clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” they are not entitled to qualified immunity. Harlow v. … Accordingly, their qualified immunity defense must fail.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

445 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2006

Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”). 2. … based on qualified immunity is proper.

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).

Alston v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that shields officers from liability for claims of unlawful conduct, so long as that conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional law. … Alston—separate and apart from shooting him—violated clearly established law such that the officers would not be entitled to qualified immunity. 21 deadly or not—in

Hartley v. Wilfert

918 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2013

“The 16 doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … It must now determine whether that right was clearly established. To reject an official’s claim of qualified immunity, “the unlawfulness” of his action must be apparent “in the light of pre-existing law.” Atherton v.

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.

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

285 F. Supp. 3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 2018

rights was not clearly established). … This requirement-that an official loses qualified immunity only for violating clearly established law-protects officials accused of violating "extremely abstract rights." Id.

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.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Messe

746 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1990

In the alternative, the defendants contend that they are immune from liability because the law was not clearly established. Finally, the defendants argue that special factors militate in favor of granting them immunity. … The defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Stoddard v. Wynn

68 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2014

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to performance of their discretionary functions, unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which … Further, the court must determine “whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.

Deluca v. Merner

322 F. Supp. 3d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2018

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials conducting discretionary functions from civil liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In other words, qualified immunity does not apply if the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Lederman v. United States

131 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2001

An individual defendant in a Bivens action has qualified immunity if the defendant was sued for conduct that did not violate clearly established law at the time the defendant acted, even if that conduct is later determined … immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue” and that “[ojfficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their

Deutsch v. United States Department of Justice

881 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 1995

Plaintiff fails to identify a clearly established right which the Defendants are alleged to have violated. … Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs claims. D.

Ford v. Mitchell

890 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2012

“Generally, when a plaintiff sues a governement agent in his individual capacity and the government agent raises a qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must overcome the qualified immunity defense in order to survive … 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 have

Arrington, Derreck v. United States

473 F.3d 329 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 2006

Officer Murray’s Claims of Qualified Immunity Appellee Murray seeks affirmance of the District Court’s judgment in his favor on the grounds of qualified immunity. … If constitutional violations are alleged, the court must next determine whether the right allegedly violated is clearly established. Id.

Andreen v. Lanier

573 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

ANALYSIS “Qualified immunity .shields a government official from liability under § 1983 provided that the official’s conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have … that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Page v. Mancuso

999 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2013

The Qualified Immunity Doctrine “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 … the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”