Case law

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

75 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2014

Less clear is whether Officer Thau’s decision to strike Westfahl with his baton is protected by qualified immunity. … Thus, Sergeant Mack is entitled to qualified immunity as well.

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.

Daniel Ellsberg, v John N. Mitchell

709 F.2d 51 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 1983

Under Harlow , officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow.); Sampson v.

Zervas v. District of Columbia

817 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1993

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages incurred in the performance of a discretionary function “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, qualified immunity is not a bar to plaintiffs claim of intentional racial discrimination in employment. The Court denies defendant’s motion as to the defense of qualified immunity. 6.

Morgan v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 2016

Morgan has not identified any other applicable waiver of the sovereign immunity bar, and thus he has clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims for … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982) (qualified immunity protects only those officials who have acted in an objectively reasonable manner).

Whittaker v. Munoz

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity entitles officers to immunity from suit unless their conduct violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … If the right in question was not clearly established, a court need not “broach the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity regardless.”

Lewis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2025

A plaintiff seeking to overcome a claim of qualified immunity bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right that the officers allegedly violated was clearly established at the relevant time. See Dukore v. … As to each claim, moreover, Defendants invoke their qualified immunity, arguing that they did not act in violation of any clearly established law. Plaintiffs’ response is equally straightforward.

Katz v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2022

Katz must also overcome Sergeant Maguire’s invocation of qualified immunity. … privilege against common law tort claims and qualified immunity from constitutional claims”).

Sanders v. District of Columbia

16 F. Supp. 2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

Government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions and “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Barry and Soulsby’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is denied. H.

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

Smith’s conduct violated “clearly established law,” and thus Sgt. Smith had a right to qualified immunity. See Bowser II, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 33–35. The Court allowed Mr. … Bowser still has not pointed to “clearly established law” that Sgt. Smith violated. Mr.

Wheeler v. American University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2022

qualified immunity purposes. … clearly established.

Estate Of Anthony Sean Phillips, Sr.

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards's failure to remedy … II. 7 Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would

Brown v. District of Columbia

249 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2017

“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 … if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Doris Andrews and Otis Andrews v. Thomas H. Wilkins, Individually and in His Official Capacity

934 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to federal and state officials charged with constitutional torts so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the claimants made out a valid claim for a constitutional tort, against which the Deputy lacked qualified immunity.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Rasul v. Myers

512 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … 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 rights of which a reasonable person

Crudup v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2023

clearly established at the time.” … Page 16 of 25  Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their actions is not clearly established, see Defs.

Slater v. Biehl

793 A.2d 1268 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2002

“The exclusion is expressed in strong and unqualified terms” and does not countenance a qualified interpretation. Ketland v. … Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1351 is clearly applicable to a civil action against Biehl, the wife of the Chilean Ambassador.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

644 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

In Re Iraq and Afghanistan Detainees Litigation

479 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2007

The "threshold inquiry a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation." Hope v. … Accordingly, there being no violation of clearly established constitutional rights in this case, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the alleged constitutional torts. II.