24 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 266,691 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 279,746 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Albright v. Oliver
510 U.S. 266 (1994) Cited 12,959 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution
Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410 (2006) Cited 4,135 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech"
Connick v. Myers
461 U.S. 138 (1983) Cited 5,955 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer need not "allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action"
Burks v. Raemisch
555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,603 times
Holding that "[p]ublic officials do not have a free-floating obligation to put things to rights" and "no prisoner is entitled to insist that one employee do another's job"
Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park
734 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2013) Cited 472 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff successfully pleaded an adverse employment action based on his assignment to the night shift where plaintiff alleged facts indicating that his duties were so restricted that “it is as if he is not a sergeant”
Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist
699 F.2d 864 (7th Cir. 1983) Cited 1,077 times
Holding the sheriff liable in his official capacity under § 1983 for the constitutional deprivations by his deputies and stating an individual implicated in a § 1983 action cannot be held liable "unless he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation."
Fillmore v. Page
358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 495 times
Finding force was de minimis where inmate experienced "discomfort and sore wrists"
Vinning–el v. Evans
657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 345 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "RLUIPA does not authorize any kind of relief against public employees, as opposed to governmental bodies that receive federal funds and accept the conditions attached by the statute"
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 505,787 times 708 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 361,353 times 960 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,831 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Brown, Shannon v. State of Wisconsin et al

24 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

Holding if an employee does not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, "the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer's reaction to the speech"

Holding that an employer need not "allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action"

Holding that "[p]ublic officials do not have a free-floating obligation to put things to rights" and "no prisoner is entitled to insist that one employee do another's job"

Holding that plaintiff successfully pleaded an adverse employment action based on his assignment to the night shift where plaintiff alleged facts indicating that his duties were so restricted that “it is as if he is not a sergeant”

Holding the sheriff liable in his official capacity under § 1983 for the constitutional deprivations by his deputies and stating an individual implicated in a § 1983 action cannot be held liable "unless he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation."

Finding force was de minimis where inmate experienced "discomfort and sore wrists"

Holding that the "RLUIPA does not authorize any kind of relief against public employees, as opposed to governmental bodies that receive federal funds and accept the conditions attached by the statute"

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."