-
786 F.3d 1 D.C. Circuit 2015年5月15日 No. 13-5308
did not violate clearly established law.
Thus the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine the right at issue “in light of the specific context of the case,” not simply as a statement of general legal principles.
The “ ‘consensus viev/ ” we have found necessary to create a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes requires more than a single decision departing from an otherwise consistent pattern.
-
932 F.2d 10 D.C. Circuit 1991年5月10日 No. 90-5281被引用 35 次 協同意見書 · Henderson
HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the appellants enjoy qualified immunity because at the time of Harris’s death there was no clearly established constitutional right to medical care
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal
In short, I find the appellants entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity because “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
-
199 F.3d 496 D.C. Circuit 1999年12月28日 No. 98-5530被引用 61 次 不同意見書 · Henderson
If the law was not clearly established then it is irrelevant whether or not the appellants violated the law because they were shielded by qualified immunity and therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Behrens v.
Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 306 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (“Unless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dis^ missal before
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (defendant entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff “not only failed to allege the violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of
-
893 F.3d 802 D.C. Circuit 2018年6月26日 No. 16-7146
The court also held that Officer Rahim was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim because no clearly established law prohibited the takedown maneuver he allegedly used to effect the arrest.
"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.' " Mullenix
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.
-
891 F.3d 386 D.C. Circuit 2018年6月1日 No. 17-5128
"Qualified immunity depends upon the answers to two questions: (1) Did the officer's conduct violate a constitutional or statutory right? If so, (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the violation?" Jones v.
Accordingly, "courts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all."
The proponent of a purported right has the "burden to show that the particular right in question ... was clearly established" for qualified-immunity purposes. Dukore v. Dist. of Columbia , 799 F.3d 1137 , 1145 (D.C.
-
841 F.3d 1022 D.C. Circuit 2016年11月8日 No. 15-7098被引用 25 次 不同意見書 · Brown
established” at the time'the officers took action, yet it must be in order to defeat qualified immunity.
the label “clearly established” onto the newfangled “rule” drawn from them, and then employs this “rule” to deny qualified immunity.
Camreta is illuminating towards the nature of qualified immunity and the "clearly established” standard.
-
676 F.3d 1114 D.C. Circuit 2012年4月17日 No. 11-7033
They further claim that, even if their actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.
We agree that appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.” See Pearson v.
Conclusion Appellants are entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of appellees’ home nor their nighttime search violated “clearly established law.”
-
491 F.3d 494 D.C. Circuit 2007年6月26日 Nos. 05-7157, 05-7163, 06-7009
Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir.2007) (“Whether the right at issue in a claim of qualified immunity is clearly established ... is a pure question of law....”); Williams v. Ala.
The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.
immunity on these claims because this right was not “clearly established” at the time of the actions at issue in this case.
-
778 F.3d 133 D.C. Circuit 2015年2月13日 No. 13-5130
Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the deputies violated no clearly established law and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. *135 I.
Fenwick’s clearly established constitutional rights.” Id. at 225. On appeal, the deputies challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, renewing their assertion of qualified immunity.
To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show not only that an official “violated a constitutional right” but also that “the right was clearly established”- at the time of the violation. Saucier v.
-
704 F.3d 1003 D.C. Circuit 2013年1月15日 No. 10-5334
Because it was uncertain whether the Tenth Circuit’s retaliatory arrest law remained clearly established, the defendants in Reichle were entitled to qualified immunity.
Because the First Amendment law on this point is not clear, the defendants in this case cannot be said to have violated “clearly established” First Amendment law.
Therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and the suit may not proceed. I respectfully dissent.
-
405 F. Supp. 2d 34 D.D.C. 2005年12月20日 No. Civ.A. 02-133(GK)
The Law Was “Clearly Established” for Purposes of Qualified Immunity The Government Defendants next argue that even if Plaintiff can state a constitutional violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not
The Court held that this principle was clearly established so as to preclude the granting of qualified immunity. Id.
Obviously, the legal principles the Supreme Court held were "clearly established," in 1997 are equally clearly established for the qualified immunity analysis in this case. 5 .
-
434 F.3d 565 D.C. Circuit 2006年1月13日 No. 04-5388
established constitutional rights, thus stripping appellants of any qualified immunity.
The court held that failure to conform to these standards constitutes a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and deprives an official of qualified immunity.
Assistant Chief Neivsham’s Claim to Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
-
637 F.3d 380 D.C. Circuit 2011年3月25日 No. 09-5330
It concluded the strip searches violated the Fourth Amendment and held Dillard was not entitled to qualified immunity “because the law was clearly established that blanket strip searches of non-violent, non-felony arrestees were unlawful
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.
In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts focus upon the state of the law “at the time [the] action occurred” because “i[f] the law at that time was not clearly established,” then the official “could
-
D.C. Circuit 2023年1月27日 No. 21-7138尚無引用 未刊載（先例效力有限）
not violate clearly established law.
On the facts of this case, Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law.
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.” Ortiz v.
-
355 F. Supp. 3d 81 D.D.C. 2019年1月2日 No. 18-10936-TSH
Defendants argue that the caselaw demonstrates Plaintiff's right was not clearly established and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
In Torres-Rivera , for instance, the First Circuit held that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in the excessive force context that "the law was clearly established in 1998 that an officer in O'Neill' s circumstances
While courts often avoid the first prong of the qualified immunity test at this stage in the litigation, the necessity to define the clearly established right with particularity has blurred the distinction in this case between the
-
818 F.3d 1 D.C. Circuit 2016年4月1日 No. 15-7040
Seeking to avoid this result, the District urges us to affirm on an alternative ground, ie., that Pezzat is entitled to qualified immunity because she violated no clearly established law.
“[(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 would have known.’
In the district court, the District of Columbia argued only that Robinson suffered no constitutional injury; it never argued that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on clearly established law grounds. See Defs.’
-
983 F.2d 253 D.C. Circuit 1993年1月22日 No. 91-5055
therefore had qualified immunity from suit.
by qualified immunity.
Cameron asserts that the district court erred in determining that the appellees were protected by qualified immunity.
-
706 F.3d 512 D.C. Circuit 2013年2月8日 No. 11-5298
qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first” — (1) whether the alleged facts show that the officials’ conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of
II “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.”
Whether a government official is entitled to qualified immunity “generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”
-
D.C. Circuit 2025年8月1日 No. 24-7064尚無引用 未刊載（先例效力有限）
Qualified immunity “immunizes government officials from damages suits unless their conduct has violated a clearly established right,” Tolan v.
Supp. 90, 92 (D.D.C. 1961), but a single district court decision does not itself set forth clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity, see Johnson v. District of Columbia, 528 F.3d 969, 976 (D.C.
The question could be interpreted in a number of different ways, and for purposes of qualified immunity, the plaintiffs point to no clearly established law indicating that an ambiguous query of the kind posed by Turpin could amount
-
794 F.3d 25 D.C. Circuit 2015年7月17日 No. 14-7042
Officer Boyd moved for judgment on the pleadings for Count 1, arguing that he is protected by qualified immunity. The district court explained, to overcome Officer Boyd’s claim to qualified immunity, Mrs.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects police officers “from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”
That, however, is not good enough to pierce the officer’s claim of qualified immunity.
只顯示前 500 件。請縮小搜尋範圍或加上篩選條件。