Case law

Rasul v. Myers

512 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 11, 2008

It then concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit under Bivens because any constitutional right the detainees possessed was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. … entitled to qualified immunity from suit pursuant to Harlow v.

Daniel Ellsberg v. John N. Mitchell

807 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

Defendants claim that qualified immunity shields them from liability since the wiretap, having had a validating national security purpose did not violate clearly established law. … Later, also despite Young’s pending discovery motions, the District Court granted summary judgment to Mitchell on qualified immunity grounds against Young, finding that the “objective record thus establishes a valid [national

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.

Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell

87 F. Supp. 3d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

of the complaint seeks an order directing the Secretary to conduct an election pursuant to the IRA, Congress has clearly waived the United States’ sovereign immunity with respect to this suit. … Consequently, subsection (d)(2) is, at most, ambiguous as far as the defense of sovereign immunity is concerned, and that section therefore fails to qualify as the type of unequivocal and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity

Richardson v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

He is therefore entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. … As the Court explained, Smith himself is protected from this allegation by qualified immunity—no clearly established law required him to institute such policies.

Aleotti v. Baars

896 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1995

Sergeant Hickey and Captain Hennessey are shielded from liability by qualified immunity. … Federal officials, such as Special Agent Trainor, are entitled to qualified immunity for civil damage claims for constitutional and statutory violations asserted against them unless their conduct violates "clearly established

Local 1812, American Federation of Government Employees v. United States Department of State

662 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 1987

This case arises from the Department of State’s recent decision to expand its employee medical fitness program for all Foreign Service employees seeking to qualify or who have qualified for worldwide service abroad, by including … It does not appear from the present record that HIV-infected persons are “otherwise qualified” for worldwide Foreign Service duty.

Singleton v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2022

, they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Bruno Mpoy v. Michelle Rhee

758 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

“Under [qualified immunity] doctrine, courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established … The question under the qualified immunity doctrine is whether the official violated a right that was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” and thus whether the defendants “could reasonably have believed

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).

Boatwright v. Jacks

239 F. Supp. 3d 229 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2017

In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish the individual defendants “knew or should have known that the action [they] took within [their] sphere … As a result, to defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts that establish the individuals as “plainly incompetent” or “knowingly violating] the law.”

Akers v. Watts

740 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[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 … Plaintiff cannot establish that the federal defendants violated a right protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution, and, therefore, these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

Qutb v. Ramsey

285 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2003

Therefore, unless the law “put[s] the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly be unlawful,” summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. … ” to put officers on notice for qualified immunity purposes.

Clark v. District of Columbia

241 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … Defendants argue that Defendant Manley is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant Manley violated a “clearly established” right at the time of

Rivera v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

"[Q]ualified immunity protects officials from liability 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … A qualified immunity analysis requires that the Court consider "whether the alleged facts show that the individual's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right, and . . . whether that right was clearly established

Wilkins v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Officers are entitled to qualified immunity “under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … Because Defendants’ take down of Plaintiff did not violate clearly established law, Defendants are shielded by qualified immunity.

Donohoe v. Watt

546 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 1982

When violations of constitutional rights are alleged, however, the immunity of executive branch officers is qualified. It exists only to the extent the official acted reasonably and in good faith. Butz v. … The second consideration is an “objective” inquiry into the extent to which the official knew or reasonably should have known that his conduct would violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

Lash v. Lemke

971 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2013

Those entitled to qualified immunity have "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). … Accordingly, to defeat a government official's claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show both (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly

Mpoy v. Fenty

901 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2012

Alternatively, they argue that even if the speech were protected, Plaintiff’s claim would nonetheless be barred by qualified immunity because his constitutional right to such speech was not clearly established at the time … so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Fischer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

Instead, those claims must overcome qualified immunity, which protects officials from civil liability unless their actions “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.