James by James v. Sadler

2 Citing briefs

  1. Rayven Vinson et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

    REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss Case 54

    Filed March 3, 2015

    Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 481. And whatever the rule may be in the Fifth Circuit (see James ex rel. James v. Sadler, 909 F.2d 834, 837 (5th Cir. 1990) (concluding, virtually without analysis, that a group of officers who “remained armed on the premises throughout [an] entire search” were “integral to the search”), the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that “individual officers” may not be found “liable for merely being present at the scene.” Jones, 297 F.3d at 936 (citing Chuman, 76 F.3d at 295).3 2.

  2. Clark et al v. Centene Corporation et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 31, 2014

    The standard for determining whether to grant summary judgment "is not merely whether there is a sufficient factual dispute to permit the case to go forward, but whether a rational trier of fact could find for the non-moving party based upon the record evidence before the court." James v. Sadler, 909 F.2d 834, 837 (5th Cir. 1990). The nonmoving party must come forward with competent evidentiary materials establishing a genuine fact issue for trial and may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings.