Case law

William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman

704 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

There, in examining whether the law governing retaliatory arrest claims was clearly established in the Tenth Circuit in 2006, the Court expressly declined to decide whether the absence-of-probable-cause requirement identified … Because it was uncertain whether the Tenth Circuit’s retaliatory arrest law remained clearly established, the defendants in Reichle were entitled to qualified immunity.

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

24 F.4th 686 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 4, 2022

Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986)), a foreign state “will not be found to have [explicitly] waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so[,]” id. … Indeed, an established treatise that Wye Oak relies on specifically states that “the [commercial activities] exception’s second clause provides for jurisdiction where a defendant qualifying as a ‘foreign state’ under the

Celikgogus v. Rumsfeld

920 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2013

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 person would have … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs alleged (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of violation. Saucier v.

Parker v. Brown

706 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

“Qualified immunity ... generally shields [governmental] officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2024

Relief under 2 A motion for reconsideration of a court order denying qualified immunity is properly brought under Rule 59(e). See Hanson v. … Qualified Immunity Defendants’ objection to the Court’s denial of qualified immunity fares no better.

Bernier v. Allen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2020

Complaint plausibly establish a violation of clearly established law sufficient to overcome Defendant’s qualified immunity defense. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal . . . .”).

Jalloh v. Hugee

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2025

“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 … Those undisputed facts entitle Vaillancourt to qualified immunity on each of the two constitutional claims Jalloh asserts against him.

Halperin v. Kissinger

723 F. Supp. 1535 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1989

Their motion urges that the qualified immunity doctrine announced in Harlow v. … Under the Harlow test, an official is entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability as a matter of law as long as his actions do not violate constitutional rights that were “clearly established” when he acted. 457

Liff v. Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor

156 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants also move to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity, which “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … In pleading qualified immunity, Defendants argue primarily that “Liff has not alleged the deprivation of a clearly established constitutional right” because “the Complaint at best raises a garden-variety tort claim for

Pearson v. District of Columbia

644 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Bush, 448 F.Supp.2d 198, 200 (D.D.C.2006). 12 In this case, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. (Defs.’ … Having concluded that plaintiffs allegations do not show a violation of any constitutional right, the Court need not determine whether the right infringed was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity applies.

John Sinclair, Lawrence "Pun" Plamondon, John Waterhouse Forrest v. Richard G. Kleindienst

645 F.2d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 9, 1981

On April 30, 1975, the court granted the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. … The objective branch of the qualified immunity test asks only whether the official violated clearly established, authoritatively declared law. See Procunier v.

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no “clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff’s assailant through the prison cell-block.” Smith Mot. … “In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish” that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v. Jacks, 239 F.

Nabaya v. Dudeck

38 F. Supp. 3d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2014

The allegations here fail both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry. … The defendant is thus entitled to qualified immunity from damages based on the allegations here.

Zakka v. Palladium

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2023

We agree with him; the derivative immunity is a qualified immunity that does not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, but only furnishes the defendant with an affirmative defense. … In fact, we can say on the record as it now stands that the State Department clearly did not so instruct.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. … Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity can succeed only if the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity test is met. See Defs.

Sharpe v. District of Columbia

860 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2012

Qualified Immunity 4 Detective Clingerman pleads in the alternative that he is protected by qualified immunity 5 for his actions in connection with the search of plaintiffs’ apartment. (Dkt. No. 2 at 9.). … Qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability. Hunter 20 v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 22, 227 (1991).

Kartseva v. Department of State

37 F.3d 1524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

Because we remand the constitutional quéstion, we do not now decide whether the Bivens claims can survive a claim of qualified immunity. 21 In the event, however, that the district court finds the existence of a clearly established … ] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved.”

Bean v. District of Columbia Courts

930 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2013

“In order to have a protectable right, a person ‘clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Even if Lewis and Ballester enjoyed only qualified immunity, or no immunity at all, plaintiff would not succeed against them under

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. William E. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury

506 F.2d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1974

Long established Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) policy held that hospitals qualified as charitable organizations under 501(c)(3) only if they provided free or below cost service to those unable to pay. … That sovereign immunity does not serve as a bar to the present action is further established by this court’s position that the Administrative Procedure Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Loumiet v. United States of America

225 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2016

The court must exercise particular care in discovery matters where a qualified immunity defense has been raised. In Ashcroft v. … Iqbal, the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: “The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including ‘avoidance