36 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,477 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 276,716 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
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 11,135 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding this court may raise the issue of "statutory jurisdiction" sua sponte
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (1994) Cited 7,248 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"
Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,722 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
503 U.S. 30 (1992) Cited 1,810 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"
Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (1974) Cited 3,345 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) when the complaint's allegations “are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly insubstantial, or no longer open to discussion”
Jerome Stevens Pharm v. Food Drug Admin
402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) Cited 1,055 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts may look beyond pleadings in the complaint to ascertain their own jurisdiction
Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc.
216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 1,210 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 need not allege facts establishing a prima facie case for discrimination in his complaint
Trudeau v. Federal Trade Com'n
456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 926 times
Holding APA § 702's waiver applies to claims against an agency for nonmonetary relief regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes "final agency action" subject to review under APA § 704
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 357,835 times 950 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 162,084 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,468 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 Cited 11,126 times 11 Legal Analyses
Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities
Section 702 - Right of review
5 U.S.C. § 702 Cited 7,205 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting judicial review of "agency action"
Section 2284 - Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure
28 U.S.C. § 2284 Cited 1,806 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing for the convention of such a court whenever an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of legislative districts

Strunk v. United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census et al

36 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 this court may raise the issue of "statutory jurisdiction" sua sponte

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"

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"

Holding that courts may look beyond pleadings in the complaint to ascertain their own jurisdiction

Holding that a plaintiff alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 need not allege facts establishing a prima facie case for discrimination in his complaint

Holding APA § 702's waiver applies to claims against an agency for nonmonetary relief regardless of whether the challenged agency action constitutes "final agency action" subject to review under APA § 704

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. . . ."

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

Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Providing for the convention of such a court whenever an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of legislative districts