Case law

Phillips v. Mabus

894 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2012

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Bame v. … Accordingly, the Court will deny defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. 6 Traugh and Bosworth also contend that plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are not clearly established

Butera v. District of Columbia

235 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

Alternatively, the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti- tled to qualified immunity because, even if Eric and Terry Butera could assert substantive due process rights, it was not clearly established … violates a clearly established right.

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

251 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2003

Defendants Quinlan and Miller moved to dismiss or for sum *53 mary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. … However, the Court denied qualified immunity on plaintiffs claims against defendants Quinlan and Miller in their individual capacities. Id.

Charles v. Kelly

790 F. Supp. 344 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1992

Moreover, “[ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery”. Mitchell v. … Qualified immunity is unavailable for injunctive relief. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 .

Roth, Pamela v. King, Rufus

449 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2006

Op. at 7, J.A. 85, making those appellants who helped establish the Family Court panel framework legislatively immune from all forms of relief. … As appellants aptly note, “the invalidity of a takings claim follows a fortiori from [appellees’] failure to establish any entitlement that would qualify as property under the Due Process Clause.

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.

Gilbert v. Federal Deposit Insurance

950 F. Supp. 1194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 1997

Gilbert’s claim is not tenable because the executed settlement agreement clearly does not provide for prejudgment interest. … Gilbert has failed to establish that she qualifies for relief under the Back Pay Act. 7 . It is plaintiff's burden to establish that she is a "prevailing party.” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Bame v. Clark

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2009

immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation in September 2002. … Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Berman v. Crook

293 F. Supp. 3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 2018

When a plaintiff brings an action for money damages against a federal official in his individual capacity, the official may entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … qualified immunity."

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Pitts v. District of Columbia

177 F. Supp. 3d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

They argue that the MPD Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a violation of their clearly established constitutional rights. … For this reason, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers

Solomon v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

539 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2008

Defendants Named in Personal Capacity Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their personal capacities retain the shield of qualified immunity to the extent that, in the performance of discretionary … In this case, the Court need look no further than the first-step of qualified immunity analysis. As stated in section II.

Carmer v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2025

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether a constitutional mandate must be “clearly established”—similar to principles undergirding the qualified immunity doctrine—to render the discretionary function exception … See Def.’s Mem. at 32 n.21 (advocating for the more stringent “clearly established” standard); Pl.’s Opp’n at 12 (contending that the “clearly established” standard as applied in the discretionary-function context “has

Wormley v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2009

But if so, then Step Two asks “whether the right was clearly established. … So long as a defendant’s alleged conduct violated some clearly established constitutional right, that defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Nealon v. District of Columbia

669 A.2d 685 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1995

Such a special relationship can be established in two ways: (1) by a statute prescribing “‘mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather than the public as a whole’ ”; or (2) “ ‘a direct … and decision-making,” and (3) the recognition that for certain decisions made in the exercise of discretionary functions, "there is no reason to believe a jury would render a sounder decision than those officials chosen, qualified

Turpin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2020

Supp. 3d at 198 (“[T]the applicability of qualified immunity turns on whether the facts as pleaded establish that [Defendants’] conduct was clearly prohibited under circumstances before them.” (citing Wesby, 138 S. … Supp. 199 (concluding that there was not a clearly established reasonable expectation of privacy based on the facts as alleged, and ruling on qualified immunity grounds).

Cutchin v. Dist. of Columbia

369 F. Supp. 3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 2019

Here, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless Cutchin shows the violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … "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.

Barnhardt v. District of Columbia

723 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2010

Qualified Immunity Sloan and Ramadhan argue that there was probable cause for Barnhardt’s arrest and hence no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and, therefore, that qualified immunity protects them from suit. … Qualified immunity therefore protects Sloan from suit.

Dormu v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2011

If no constitutional right was violated, qualified immunity is appropriate. Id. … Under the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, the officers would nonetheless be immune from suit if Dormu’s Fourth Amendment rights were not clearly established at the time of the arrest.

Goodwin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2022

Mem. at 8. 5 The qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials sued in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Government officers are entitled to qualified immunity “unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”