Collins v. Harker Heights

38 Citing briefs

  1. Anderson et al v. Wyant et al

    MOTION to dismiss for failure to state a claim

    Filed March 6, 2017

    But beyond these, “the Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decision making in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended.” Collins, 503 U.S. at 125. Courts have not recognized a constitutional right that would support the plaintiffs’ bodily integrity claim premised on exposure to contaminated water from a public water system, and similar claims have been soundly rejected by numerous courts.

  2. Gray et al v. Kern et al

    MEMORANDUM. Signed

    Filed January 7, 2014

    Although the incident at issue was undoubtedly tragic, to inject constitutional liability here would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s underlying concern in Collins by placing “a host of policy choices that must be made by locally elected representatives” with “federal judges interpreting the basic Case 1:13-cv-02270-WMN Document 39 Filed 01/07/14 Page 15 of 33 16 charter of Government for the entire country.” 503 U.S. at 128. Thus, to the extent that the Complaint asserts a substantive due process violation against the Baltimore Police Defendants, it will be dismissed.

  3. Anderson et al v. Wyant et al

    BRIEF in support of MOTION to dismiss 95 the First Amended Complaint

    Filed January 27, 2017

    Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992). Beyond such firmly recognized rights, however, a court must proceed with extreme caution. Collins, 503 U.S. at 125 (“judicial self-restraint requires … the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field”).

  4. Gray et al v. Kern et al

    MEMORANDUM. Signed

    Filed August 21, 2015

    (citation omitted). The Court, cautioned as it is to “exercise utmost care” in considering an expansion of the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment, Collins, 503 U.S. at 125, does not find in precedent a ground upon which to find an exceptional circumstance that state tort law cannot remedy. The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned against finding a Fourteenth Amendment violation when an injury occurs at a state-run training event.

  5. AVITIA v. S.C.

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

    Filed November 17, 2017

    “‘The doctrine ofjudicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever weare asked to break new 35 ground in this field.”” (Uribe, at p. 863, quoting Collins v. City ofHarker Heights (1992) 503 U.S. 115, 125.) And dismissals may come with a high cost.

  6. A White And Yellow Cab, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

    Filed May 24, 2017

    Substantive due process “protects individual liberty against ‘certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). “The first inquiry in every due process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected interest in ‘property’ or ‘liberty.

  7. Songwriters of North America et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

    MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed November 18, 2016

    Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301–02 (1993). But the Court has “always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended,” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). The Court has observed that the protections of substantive due process are limited to fundamental rights and liberties “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–21 (1997) (citations omitted), and it has held that “[s]ubstantive due process analysis must begin with a careful description of the asserted right.”

  8. B. et al v. Snyder et al

    MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support

    Filed November 17, 2016

    Further, in determining whether a right is fundamental, judicial self-restraint requires courts to focus on the plaintiff’s description of the right and what the government allegedly did to deprive the plaintiff of that right. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Here, despite Plaintiffs’ passionate plea alleging that literacy is a fundamental right, they do not allege what these Defendants did to deprive Plaintiffs of literacy.

  9. S.H. et al v. District of Columbia et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed September 15, 2014

    A prima facie case of a Monell claim requires both (1) a “predicate constitutional violation” and (2) “that a custom or policy of the municipality caused the violation.” See Baker v. Dist. Of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992)); accord Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Konah v. Dist. of Columbia, 971 F. Supp. 2d 74, 81 (D.D.C. 2013). Because Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual officers fail, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the requisite “predicate constitutional violation” for Monell liability in this case.

  10. Cody et al v. City of Albany et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed November 15, 2013

    Government violates substantive due process only when its actions “can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992). Plaintiffs allege that enforcement of the City’s ordinance violates substantive due process, by knowingly subjecting Bulb residents to danger to their physical health and safety.