Case law

Jones v. Horne

634 F.3d 588 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

“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 … Wolfish to demonstrate a “clearly established constitutional right,” Pearson, 129 S.

Gaither v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

Legal Standard for Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … 44 what predicate facts exist to decide whether or not the officer’s conduct clearly violated established law.”

Brown v. Short

729 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2010

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 known … in light of clearly established law.

Jones v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2021

Alternatively, Defendants argue that clearly established law did not provide Coward and Evans with notice that their actions would qualify as a seizure, so Coward and Jones are entitled to qualified immunity. … Even assuming he did, however, this seizure did not violate clearly established rights, so Coward is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Jones’s unlawful seizure claims.

Stewart, Sonya G. v. Evans, Donald L.

351 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 2003

The court went on to rule that Fredericks and Taylor were in any event entitled to qualified immunity, because no clearly established Fourth Amendment right had been violat- ed. The court declined to permit discovery. … In addition, she argues that her Fourth Amendment right was clearly estab- lished — defeating any claim of qualified immunity — be- cause O’Connor v.

Marshall v. Reno

915 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 1996

Still, the Court is unable to exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants, the defendant fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from claims against them in their individual capacities because the plaintiff fails to establish that he had a clearly established right to be transferred, deported, or placed

Hardeman v. Clark

593 F. Supp. 1285 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 1984

Additionally, the government asserts that the defendant Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. However, at this stage of the proceedings, these arguments must be rejected. … The government also states that Maurice Turner is protected from liability by a qualified immunity. In Harlow v.

Weaver v. Hanna

122 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2000

establish probable cause.”) … Officers making a lawful Terry stop, like those making a lawful arrest, are entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Rumsfeld

800 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2011

The doctrine of qualified immunity generally shields “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Where, however, the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations, taken as true, show the violation of a clearly-established constitutional right, a defendant’s motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity must be denied

Doe v. Berberich

704 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1988

The complaint clearly alleges a violation of the established right against unwarranted strip searches, and therefore meets the heightened pleadings standard of Bivens actions which requires plaintiffs to “specify the ‘clearly … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects from suit "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Thomas v. District of Columbia

887 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 1995

Qualified Immunity Officials like Sergeant Ingram are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them in their personal capacity unless their conduct … Sergeant Ingram is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kline v. Republic of El Salvador

603 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1985

Qualified immunity from suit is available to executive officials to the extent that, in *1319 the performance of discretionary functions, “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … VI Conclusion All the claims for damages under this lawsuit must be dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity or qualified individual immunity.

McKoy v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Mem. at 5–7, 9–11 (asserting the application of qualified immunity and qualified privilege to the officers’ uses of force); Pl.’s Mem. at 4–6, 7–8 (arguing against the application of qualified immunity for all claims involving

Daniels v. District of Columbia

894 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2012

Likewise, the current record does not support a finding that Officers Alvarenga and Salice are entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity.

Epps v. Gray

62 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2014

Mem. at 8-9, they assert qualified immunity as a defense, id. at 9. … And it is presumed that these rights were clearly established on August 12, 2011.

Washington v. District of Columbia

685 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1988

Plaintiff further contends that the defendants’ application for a search warrant was unreasonable and fell short of the standard for asserting qualified immunity established in Anderson v. … The Anderson court made it clear that when applying the qualified immunity standard established by Harlow in the context of an alleged fourth amendment violation of “clearly established” law, courts must focus on the reasonableness

Byrd v. Moseley

942 F. Supp. 642 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1996

ROACH BECAUSE BOTH DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. … Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to summary judgment before the commencement of discovery. Mitchell v.

Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases)

820 F.2d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1987

If Miller enjoys only qualified immunity for the conduct at issue, then additional pleadings are necessary to evaluate whether he is entitled to protection in this case. 159 Accordingly, if qualified immunity carries the … Qualified immunity protects "‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Pointer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2010

As its name implies, qualified immunity serves as an "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Id. (quoting Mitchell v. … facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right" and "whether the right was clearly established."

Saidi v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

928 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1996

In order to successfully establish a defense of qualified immunity to a charge of false arrest, the WMATA police must show probable cause existed for the arrest of the plaintiff. Gabrou, 462 A.2d at 1104 ; McCarthy v. … In order to be subject to § 1983 liability, an “officer must clearly violate a clearly established right.” District of Columbia v. Evans, 644 A.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C.1994).