Case law

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

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ortiz v. … clearly established law to be followed in 2002.

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.

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.”

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

Apton v. Wilson

506 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 16, 1974

But these considerations go to the showing an officer vested with a qualified immunity must make in support of “good faith belief;” they do not make the qualified immunity itself inappropriate. … The head of an executive department, no less than the chief executive of a state, is adequately protected by a qualified immunity.

Doe v. District of Columbia

796 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show both [1] that an official ‘violated a constitutional right’ and [2] that ‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Johnson v.

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.”

Thurman v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

We nevertheless agree with the trial court that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for these claims. … Thurman’s right was not clearly established.

Garay v. Liriano

943 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2013

Additionally, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity here as this right has been clearly established. … Burkett, 779 F.2d 1363, 1370 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Bashir, 445 F.3d a t1331 (no qualified immunity for officers’ warrantless arrest where there were no exigent circumstances as it was clearly established that such conduct

Moss v. Stockard

580 A.2d 1011 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1990

It then noted that very few state courts had extended absolute immunity this far, but rather had reserved absolute immunity for only the highest officials and accorded lesser officials qualified immunity. … Thompson, supra, this court implicitly rejected a rank-based distinction that reserves absolute immunity only for high-level ranking executive officials, leaving inferior officers only qualified immunity.

Barney v. Suggs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

Qualified immunity applies unless Burney can show that the officers (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. Plumhoff v. … The officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless Burney can show that they (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Smith v. Lanier

779 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court asks (1) whether plaintiffs’ allegations, if taken as true, show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was “clearly … Defendants have not argued that the constitutional right at issue is not clearly established.

Farmer v. Hawk

991 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1998

When an official raises a qualified immunity defense, the “plaintiff can prevail only by showing not just that there was a violation, but that defendant’s acts violated ‘.clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … which was “clearly established” and “of which a reasonable person would have known” in order to defeat a claim of qualified immunity.

Partovi v. Matuszewski

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

Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

650 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

If the alleged conduct does not violate such a clearly established right, qualified immunity applies. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). … As explained herein, the Court finds that plaintiff has stated violations of clearly established rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, and therefore, defendants are not shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity

Maddux v. District of Columbia

144 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2015

Saucier inquiry: whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established.” … immunity.

Spencer v. District of Columbia

168 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2016

not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

Evanson v. United States

878 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1995

Because defendants neither violated any clearly established rights of plaintiff nor acted unreasonably in regard to the matters about which plaintiff complains (as determined in two other proceedings by two other judges), … defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gladden v. Barry

558 F. Supp. 676 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 1983

Initially, if it is true as alleged, that Defendant Gutierrez discriminated against plaintiff, then without a doubt, this defendant did “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A contrary holding would convert the qualified immunity granted to federal officials into absolute protection—because simply by filing an affidavit denying wrongdoings officials could create a complete shield against suit