Case law

Whitacre v. Davey

727 F. Supp. 636 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1988

Finally, even if an action were otherwise stated, Flynn’s dismissal motion was well taken in that her qualified immunity protects her in the present circumstances. 1 The Supreme Court has clearly held that government officials … Since Harlow , the Supreme Court has held [ujnless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Profitt v. District of Columbia

790 F. Supp. 304 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1991

The Court, therefore, holds that all of the individually-named defendants may claim qualified immunity since the law at issue was not clearly established at the time the search occurred. … immunity since the law concerning searches of prison guards was not clearly established in the District of Columbia. *309 Doe v.

Nelson v. District of Columbia

953 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

Second, Foster argues that he is, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 8. … motions raising the qualified immunity defense.

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.

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.

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. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to

Arrington v. District of Columbia

597 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2009

The second prong for assessing a claim of qualified immunity under Saucier requires a plaintiff to show that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. … by qualified immunity.

Jones v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity and Mr. … Jones’s clearly established rights as of 2017.

Pierce v. Mattis

256 F. Supp. 3d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2017

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shield officials from suit if their conduct ‘did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ortiz v. … See 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.”).

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

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.

Allen v. Brown

320 F. Supp. 3d 16 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2018

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Qualified Immunity Defendants' qualified immunity argument is similarly premature. Chief Brown is entitled to qualified immunity unless his conduct violated "clearly established" rights.

Crosby-Bey v. Jansson

586 F. Supp. 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1984

The distinction between absolute and qualified immunity is that the former defeats a suit at the outset, while the "fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions … , as established by the evidence at trial.”

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.

Ingram v. Shipman-Meyer

241 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2017

"To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official 'violated a constitutional right' but also that 'the right was clearly established' at the time … - Meyer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he is still entitled to qualified immunity if the right to be free of such force was not clearly established at the time of

Turpin v. Ray

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2018

“clearly established” under the circumstances. … Callahan, Officers Rowley and Strange may still claim qualified immunity as long as the alleged violation was not clearly established at the time. Brown v. Fogle, 819 F. Supp. 2d 23, 28–29 (D.D.C. 2011).

Pollard v. District of Columbia

191 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2016

Qualified immunity “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 person … established constitutional law, and thus, these claims fail both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis.

Molina-Aviles v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2011

He also asserts qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ortiz v.

Tafler v. District of Columbia

539 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2008

Qualified immunity “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 person would … The Court now turns to whether the right alleged to have been violated was clearly established.

Hirpassa v. Albert

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2009

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. … However, “[a] plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time