26 Cited authorities

Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (1994) Cited 55,958 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (1988) Cited 34,755 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state's delegation of its duty to provide medical care to prisoners rendered a contract physician a state actor
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services
436 U.S. 658 (1978) Cited 67,600 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "local government ... are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 55,265 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons
Helling v. McKinney
509 U.S. 25 (1993) Cited 7,683 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that prospective harm, defined as that which is "sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering" to an inmate in the future, can be the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim even if the inmate has "no serious current symptoms"
Hishon v. King Spalding
467 U.S. 69 (1984) Cited 12,465 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job
Scheuer v. Rhodes
416 U.S. 232 (1974) Cited 22,357 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (1981) Cited 9,311 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public defender does not act "under color of state law" because he "works under canons of professional responsibility that mandate his exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the client" and because there is an "assumption that counsel will be free of state control"
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
471 U.S. 808 (1985) Cited 5,940 times
Holding inadequate training is "far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell"
Miree v. DeKalb County
433 U.S. 25 (1977) Cited 725 times
Holding that, even when the United States was a party to the contracts at issue, "whether petitioners as third-party beneficiaries of the contracts have standing to sue" was a question of state law, not of federal common law
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 490,314 times 695 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 348,503 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Malik v. District of Columbia et al

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."

Holding that a state's delegation of its duty to provide medical care to prisoners rendered a contract physician a state actor

Holding that "local government ... are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons

Holding that prospective harm, defined as that which is "sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering" to an inmate in the future, can be the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim even if the inmate has "no serious current symptoms"

Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job

Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

Holding that a public defender does not act "under color of state law" because he "works under canons of professional responsibility that mandate his exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the client" and because there is an "assumption that counsel will be free of state control"

Holding inadequate training is "far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell"

Holding that, even when the United States was a party to the contracts at issue, "whether petitioners as third-party beneficiaries of the contracts have standing to sue" was a question of state law, not of federal common law

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