Saucier v. Katz

Holding when a defendant seeks qualified immunity, "a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive."

Sandin v. Conner

Holding that liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

Kentucky v. Graham

Holding that "an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity," and that "a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself"

Anderson v. Creighton

Holding that "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness [of the challenged action] must be apparent"

Daniels v. Williams

Holding that "the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property"

Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer

Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"

Turner v. Safley

Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

McNeil v. United States

Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed

Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

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

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

Rule 4 - Summons

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Section 1346 - United States as defendant

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

Section 2680 - Exceptions

Concluding that claims for injurious falsehoods, disparagement of property, slander of goods, or trade libel are claims arising out of libel or slander under the FTCA

Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy

Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees

Section 3613 - Civil remedies for satisfaction of an unpaid fine

Granting the United States the power to enforce restitution "in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or State law ."

Section 1491 - Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee Valley Authority

Adopting the standard in 5 U.S.C. § 706

Section 1997 - Definitions

Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"

Section 542.10 - Purpose and scope

Explaining ARP as providing "a process through which inmates may seek formal review of an issue which relates to any aspect of their confinement"

Section 545.11 - Procedures

Mandating these penalties for refusing to participate in the financial responsibility program

Section 545.10 - Purpose and scope

Permitting Bureau of Prisons to determine payment schedules

Section 543.30 - Purpose and scope

Stating that the process for exhaustion of administrative tort claims is set forth in Part 543, not Part 542

Section 543.31 - Presenting a claim

Providing that claims must be mailed or delivered to the BOP regional office of the region where the claim occurred

Section 524.11 - Process for classification and program reviews

Section 524.20 - Purpose and scope