Case law

Bowrin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 28, 2023

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … “Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v.

Johnson v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

By definition, qualified immunity is not absolute. Rather, it “is applicable unless the 14 official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” … 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

Ferris v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2023

Defendants also argue Plaintiffs cannot overcome qualified immunity because there was no violation of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 23. … entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Bernier v. Obama

242 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2017

was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. … Here, Plaintiff’s Bivens claims are easily dismissed on the second prong of the qualified immunity test because the rights Plaintiff claims were violated were not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred

Arrington v. Ramsey

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2009

Ala. 1995) (finding that qualified immunity applies and the plaintiff failed to cite any case law binding on the court "which establishes that a police officer, while acting within the scope of his or her duty, violates … The second prong for assessing a claim of qualified immunity under Saucier requires a 13 plaintiff to show that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional

Hawkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

“Because qualified immunity is an immunity from suit[,] . . . we have repeatedly stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” … Yet it is an entirely separate question as to whether such rights were clearly established.

Washington v. Amand

308 F. Supp. 3d 497 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects all public officials except the "plainly incompetent [and] those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. … Second, we inquire whether the violated right was clearly established at the time that the offending conduct occurred.

Simon v. Bickell

737 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

Even if Atkins, Bickell, and Kelly were not entitled to absolute immunity, they would be entitled to qualified immunity. … "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 of the conduct

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.

Johnson v. GOVERNMENT OF DIST. OF COLUMBIA

780 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2011

Circuit has very recently made “plain that a constitutional right” as alleged by Plaintiffs “is not clearly established,” id., it is prudent for this Court to proceed directly to qualified immunity. … clearly established law to be followed in 2002.

Fenwick v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2016

immunity. … Circuit determined, on summary judgment following full discovery, that “it was not clearly established that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment.” Fenwick v. Pudimott, 778 F.3d at 139.

Gudger v. District of Columbia

181 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2016

[because] it is impossible for the court to determine, as a matter of law, what predicate facts exist to decide whether or not the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law”)). … Marable’s last known address, which seems to directly cut against Sergeant Millsaps’s qualified immunity defense. See id.

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.

Mittleman v. United States Treasury

773 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1991

Qualified Immunity and Lack of Specificity There are two ways in which plaintiff may overcome defendants’ defense *452 of qualified immunity. … In order to defeat a defendant’s claim of immunity under the objective standard, plaintiff must show that a defendant violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Partovi v. Matuszewski

647 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 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

Smith v. Nixon

807 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

In Halperin II, 807 F.2d at 188, we held that objective reasonableness of national security motivation is all that need be established to sustain that element of the qualified immunity defense consisting of the contention … There is no dispute that the challenged wiretap was illegal (albeit not in violation of clearly established law). See United States v.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

672 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1987

does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818,102 S.Ct. at 2738. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (recognizing qualified immunity of state police officers). 7 The Court has also made clear that the qualified immunity defense is intended not only

Armbruster v. Frost

962 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Stevenson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2022

on qualified immunity grounds. … In finding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, the court further emphasized that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case is whether, as [the plaintiff] alleges, the law clearly prohibited