Case law

Smith v. Nixon

664 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1987

As such, the Court concluded that the defendants were shielded from liability under the qualified immunity doctrine. Id. … However, when speaking of the fact that the wiretap was not in violation of “clearly established” law, it is abundantly clear that the Court of Appeals was referring solely to the standard for establishing qualified immunity

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).

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.

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.

Cotton v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Qualified immunity “shield[s officials] from liability for civil damages insofar as [the official’s] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 591 , 118 S.Ct. 1584 , 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (stating that “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know

Taylor v. Moore

383 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2019

"Qualified immunity affords limited protection to public officials faced with liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … The qualified immunity analysis has two prongs: (1) whether the facts that plaintiff has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right at issue was "clearly established" at the time of defendant's

Daugherty v. Sheer

248 F. Supp. 3d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Qualified Immunity (All Defendants) Defendants also request that this court find that all Defendants are immune from suit because they possess qualified immunity. … Government officials may be protected by qualified immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Gray, William T. v. Poole, Theisha

275 F.3d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 2002

Under this form of immunity, government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … These functions are subject to qualified, not abso- lute, immunity. In Malley v.

Pointer v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 5, 2010

As its name implies, qualified immunity serves as an “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. … was clearly established.”

Jackson v. District of Columbia

541 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Eldridge is entitled to qualified immunity; (2) Cpt. … According to defendants, Captain Eldridge enjoys qualified immunity for plaintiffs claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1982 because Cpt. Eldridge did not violate a clearly established right. The Court agrees.

Quander v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2023

Courts may consider qualified immunity at the pleading stage because it is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Id quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the facts alleged by plaintiff do not demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right or (2) the alleged constitutional right violated was not clearly established

Davis v. Billington

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

whom qualified immunity is not available." … Therefore, because the plaintiff alleges in his Complaint the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, defendant Mulhollan's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds must be denied.

Bridgeforth v. Bronson

584 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2008

Qualified immunity protects government officials from paying damages and facing suit in civil actions where the officials were performing a discretionary function that did not “violate clearly established statuto *118 ry … The qualified immunity analysis involves two steps.

Briggs v. Goodwin

569 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 21, 1977

An isolated and clearly incorrect footnote in S & S Logging Co. v. … Because issuance of the arrest warrant was clearly within his general powers under state law, the Justice of the Peace in Duba was found absolutely immune from civil suit.

Bushrod v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer’s conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?” … risk of causing significant bodily injury” to an officer just moments beforehand). 28 For his part, Bushrod is nearly silent on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Gray v. Bell

542 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 1982

A prosecutor engaging in investigative or administrative activities is entitled to only qualified immunity. Halperin v. … Even if defendants are entitled only to qualified immunity under the circumstances of this case, they still are immune from suit.

Dodge v. Trustees of the National Gallery of Art

326 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2004

qualified immunity is lost. … If the federal official was not on notice that his conduct would clearly be unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Malley v.

Patel v. Liu

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that qualified immunity warrants dismissal even if Bivens would supply a cause of action here. See Defs.’ Mem. at 18. The court agrees. … was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct.

LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova

985 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2021

In 1976, the Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Under the FSIA, foreign governments are generally immune from the jurisdiction of federal and state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … The FSIA’s arbitration exception therefore applies and we reject Moldova’s immunity claim.

Scott v. Conley

937 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2013

Remaining Defendants Are Shielded by Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that the named individual defendants have qualified immunity from suit. … No “clearly established” Due Process right Scott has also failed to demonstrate that defendants’ actions could have violated any “clearly established” due process right.