Case law

Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and District of Columbia Department of Corrections

951 F.2d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1992

She asserted a qualified immunity defense under Harlow v. … Thus, while the cases “clearly establish” that Crawford-El had a constitutional right against any official who interfered with his access to active legal files with intent to impair that access, they do not establish the

Carlos Loumiet v. United States

828 F.3d 935 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2016

Contending that the exception should at least immunize governmental policy discretion that is not clearly unconstitutional, the government adverts to the qualified- immunity doctrine of Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982), under which a constitutional tort plaintiff seeking to defeat an individual official’s qualified-immunity defense must show that the claimed constitutional rights were “clearly established

Hedgpeth v. Rahim

213 F. Supp. 3d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2016

That case was easy: no qualified immunity. … Because the Court cannot say that a reasonable officer would have realized a takedown maneuver in these circumstances violated clearly established law, Rahim is entitled to qualified immunity. C.

Klayman v. Obama

125 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2015

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In evaluating a qualified immunity defense, the court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged the violation of such a right, and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Bame v. Dillard

647 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2009

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In sum, Defendant Marshal Dillard is not entitled to qualified immunity because the law was clearly established that blanket strip searches of non-violent, non-felony arrestees were unlawful at the time of the searches at

Reaves v. Dep't of Corr.

333 F. Supp. 3d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2018

Qualified Immunity (Counts VI, VII, VIII, IX) 11 "The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Accordingly, I find that this is a constitutional right that is not clearly established and the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Harbury v. Deutch

233 F.3d 596 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2000

immunity because the scope of the alleged right was not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant’s conduct violated a right that is clearly established in general terms.

Leyland v. Edwards

797 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2011

Qualiñed Immunity Even if Leyland’s Bivens claim was not barred due to “special factors,” defendant still has qualified immunity, shielding him from this lawsuit. … Here, the defendant clearly enjoys qualified immunity because he correctly concluded that an unregistered firearm is contraband, see United States v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 389 (D.C.Cir.1997); Guishard v.

Walton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

533 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 2008

“[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … An official protected by qualified immunity enjoys “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” which is “effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Z Street, Inc. v. Koskinen

44 F. Supp. 3d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Minch v. District of Columbia

952 A.2d 929 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (in the context of qualified immunity of a police officer, “[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is … If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.”

Mazloum v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

576 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2008

Applying that well-established legal standard, the Court concludes that Ramirez is not entitled to qualified immunity here. … Turning to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, then, the Court notes that it is axiomatic that indi *39 viduals enjoy a clearly established right to be secure from excessive force exercised by police officers

Evangelou v. District of Columbia

901 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity 12 protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … use of his answers in a criminal proceeding has been clearly established since 1968.

Harper v. Booth

382 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendant contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity, which protects government officials from trial and monetary liability unless the pleaded facts establish that 1) the official violated a statutory … If the facts do not show a constitutional violation or that the right in question was not clearly established, the officer is immune. Marrero-Mendez v. Calixto-Rodriguez , 830 F.3d 38 , 43 (1st Cir. 2016).

Robinson v. Farley

264 F. Supp. 3d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2017

“have invoked the affirmative defense of qualified immunity . . . in name only[.]” … Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the MPD Officers have invoked the defense of qualified immunity in name only, and as a result, the purported “qualified immunity” basis for dismissal fails for the same reason

Meyer v. Reno

911 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 1996

Sovereign immunity bars any claims against the defendants in their official capacities. Furthermore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity- A. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Prison officials enjoy qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims. Cleavinger v.

Wayne Chastain v. Don Sundquist

833 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 1987

For most executive officials, the immunity from all suits alleging constitutional and statutory violations is limited to a qualified defense whereby officials are held answerable only if they violate “clearly established” … makes clear, the violations giving rise to liability may or may not be clearly established.

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

246 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Qualified immunity Police officers are immune from suit where their actions did not violate clearly established law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243–44 (2009). … At the summary judgment stage on a claim of qualified immunity, the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing qualified immunity—in this case, Plaintiff. Id.

Chs Industries, LLC v. United States Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

Ct. 808, 815 (2009), the Supreme Court gave a succinct overview of 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 rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Cooper v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2021

Clearly Established Right The second question hinges on whether the takedown and strikes “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … (finding that kicking suspect after he was on ground and subdued violated clearly established law).