Albright v. Oliver

70 Citing briefs

  1. Whitlock v. City of Paris et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for Counts II and III of the Complaint

    Filed July 7, 2008

    When a particular constitutional provision provides an explicit textual source of a right, the claimed right must be analyzed under that provision, not under the generalized notion of due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998); Albright, 510 U.S. at 271-72. In the Seventh Circuit, a false imprisonment claim can only be based upon the Fourth Amendment, not on due process.

  2. AVITIA v. S.C.

    Real Party in Interest, The People, Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 17, 2017

    And the Court eliminated any fundamental right to any particular grand jury procedure whenit held that there is no due process liberty interest in a probable cause hearing ofanykind beforetrial. (Albright v. Oliver (1994) 510 U.S. 266, 268, 272-275; accord, Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) 420 U.S. 103, 118-119.) So the United States Constitution creates no liberty interest in state grand jury procedures.

  3. Jones v. Jordan et al

    MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed

    Filed September 18, 2017

    The parties both overlook that when courts consider a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, they “must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true.” Albright, 510 U.S. at 268.

  4. Miango et al v. Democratic Republic of Congo et al

    RESPONSE re MOTION to Dismiss Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint

    Filed January 3, 2017

    For purposes of ruling on defendants' motion, this Court must accept Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 770 (1993); Doe v. United States Dep't of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Campbell-El v. District of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 42, 43 (D.D.C. 1995). The Court must draw all reasonable facts and inferences in a light most favorable to plaintiff.

  5. Loumiet v. United States of America et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed October 14, 2016

    The Supreme Court has declared that “[w]here a particular Amendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing [those] claims.’” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). In this case, the First Amendment provides an “explicit textual source of constitutional protection” against governmental restriction of protected speech, such that the First Amendment, and “not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process’” should be the guide for analyzing what is fundamentally a retaliatory prosecution claim.

  6. Santos v. The City Of New York , et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document

    Filed December 15, 2014

    In these circumstances, where there is explicit textual protection for the wrong in the form of an altemative claim, such as false arrest, malicious prosecution, or excessive force, Fourteenth Amendment due process does not provide an alternative basis for a claim. See, e.g., Lewis, 523 U.S. at 848 (due process clause does not amount to a catch-all provision that provides a remedy whenever a state actor causes harm); Albrieht v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266,273 (1994) (generalized notion of substantive due process does not provide a remedy where there is an explicit source of constitutional protection). The Second Circuit considered Albright at length in Sinser v. Fulton County Sheriff,63 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1995), cert.

  7. Botbol et al v. The City of New York et al

    REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Stefanie Mount in Support re: 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 22, 2014

    Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have held that where there is an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that amendment must be the guide for analyzing these claims. Bryant v. City of New York, 404 F.3d 128, 135-136 (2d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (relying on Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 275 (1994) (plurality opinion)).6 Her reliance on two state court cases for the 6 Plaintiff’s reliance on Swartz v. Insogna for the proposition that her court appearances allegedly amount to a deprivation is similarly misplaced, as that concerned a malicious prosecution claim and not a fair trial claim, whereas the case cited by Defendants -- Antes v. Bonura, 10 Civ. 5472 Case 1:05-cv-01572-RJS-JCF Document 283 Filed 07/22/14 Page 8 of 13 7 alleged admissibility of the two documents is misplaced. See People v. Hunter, 62 A.D.3d 1207, 1208 (N.Y. App. Div.

  8. Botbol et al v. The City of New York et al

    REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Lieutenant Iecampo in Support re: 256 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 22, 2014

    Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have held that where there is an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that amendment must be the guide for analyzing these claims. Bryant v. City of New York, 404 F.3d 128, 135-136 (2d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (relying on Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 275 (1994) (plurality opinion)).6 Her reliance on two state court cases for the 6 Plaintiff’s reliance on Swartz v. Insogna for the proposition that her court appearances allegedly amount to a deprivation is similarly misplaced, as that concerned a malicious prosecution claim and not a fair trial claim, whereas the case cited by Defendants -- Antes v. Bonura, 10 Civ. 5472 Case 1:05-cv-01572-RJS-JCF Document 284 Filed 07/22/14 Page 8 of 13 7 alleged admissibility of the two documents is misplaced. See People v. Hunter, 62 A.D.3d 1207, 1208 (N.Y. App. Div.

  9. First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al v. National Security Agency et al

    MOTION to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed December 6, 2013

    However, “[w]here a particular Amendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing’ these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); Ramirez v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 298 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Plaintiffs ground their substantive due process claim on privacy interests allegedly protected by the Fourth Amendment, that claim must be dismissed.

  10. Klayman v. Obama et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed November 12, 2013

    Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 25 Filed 11/12/13 Page 73 of 79 61 generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing’these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)). Because Plaintiffs ground their substantive due process claim on privacy interests allegedly protected by the Fourth Amendment, that claim cannot serve as an independent basis for issuing a preliminary injunction.