Case law

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.

Heard v. Johnson

810 A.2d 871 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2002

Immunity Claim 1. The Trustees Right to Assert This Immunity. … As such, the case would have fallen into a clearly delineated exception (discussed below) to a church’s First Amendment immunity from suit.

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

Koutny v. Martin

530 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2007

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 known … “the sometimes nuanced issues involved with qualified immunity” becomes “unnecessary.”

Morgan v. Barry

785 F. Supp. 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1992

Third, “because the officer may have a qualified immunity from liability for his conduct ... the complaint must demonstrate that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right ... that was clearly established at the … District of Columbia, 932 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1991) (finding qualified immunity because officers were not under a clearly established constitutional obligation to obtain medical care for drug overdose victim). 20 .

Jenkins v. District of Columbia

4 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2013

Qualified immunity shields government officials from suit relating to the performance of their discretionary functions unless an official’s conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Coley’s arguments for qualified immunity, they will be denied. Her argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity for the assault at the police cruiser will be denied.

Fludd v. Mitchell

181 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2016

Qualified Immunity Even if the various “J. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Goolsby v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2018

False Arrest The Officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Goolsby’s false arrest claim unless (1) their actions violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established at the time of their actions … False Arrest Beginning with the false arrest claims, the Court will again start with the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether any violation by the Dispatchers was clearly established.

Ruiz Rivera v. Holder

666 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider ''whether the alleged facts show that the individual’s conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and ... whether that right was clearly established

Johnson v. District

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2025

Indeed, when the constitutional-violation question is difficult to answer, many courts opt to resolve qualified-immunity claims on the “clearly established” prong alone. … Clearly Established Law The next prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the violated constitutional rights were clearly established.

Bragdon v. Malone

425 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2006

Malone asserts qualified immunity for his actions in a footnote. The assertion can be dealt with in a footnote. … The defense 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

Rosemond v. Washington

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2025

Even assuming Defendants’ conduct violated his Fifth Amendment rights,2 as individuals, they are entitled to qualified immunity unless their actions violate “clearly established” law. McGinnis v. … And while Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss, The Court construes Plaintiff’s constitutional claims as being brought under 42 U.S.C. 1 § 1983.

District of Columbia v. Thompson

570 A.2d 277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1990

As we shall also detail further, mandatory and discretionary duties commonly give rise to absolute immunity whereas ministerial duties at best evoke a qualified immunity. … This means that official immunity will help appellants only if it is absolute; qualified immunity would afford no more protection than the malice-destructible, qualified privilege available to any employer.

Jones v. Quintana

831 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2011

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The Contours of the Right Were “Clearly Established” Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the question is whether the relevant “right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged

Lane v. District of Columbia

211 F. Supp. 3d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

officers is barred by qualified immunity. … “[Qualified immunity shields police officers from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Kar v. Rumsfeld

580 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2008

Kar’s problem in this suit, however, is that his right to a probable cause hearing was not clearly established with sufficient specificity to overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity. … CONCLUSION Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Kar’s clearly established constitutional rights.

Gallo v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2026

Qualified immunity similarly insulates the Administrator from suit. … Qualified immunity shields state and local officials from damages claims unless they (1) violated a right (2) that was clearly established at the time. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

Watts v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity is Immunity from Suit "[G]ovemment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it "is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Pearson v. Callahan, _ U.S. _, _, 129 S.

Gunter v. Cicero

364 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2019

"A government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory *139 or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … Here, because the court already determined Defendants violated Plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional rights, only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis is at issue. 1.

Franz v. United States

591 F. Supp. 374 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1984

In the face of this principle, the plaintiff cannot successfully contend that the defendants have violated any clearly established rights of Mr. … Under this formulation, any activities concerning the administration of the Program would qualify as protected activities, and defendants could invoke the qualified immunity doctrine.