Acosta v. Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, if correctional officers indeed called plaintiff a “snitch” in front of other prisoners in retaliation for his filing grievances, it would violate the First Amendment
• labeling prisoner a “snitch” in the 1 presence of other inmates is sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference to an 2 inmate’s safety
• labeling prisoner a “snitch” in the presence of other inmates is 13 sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety
• labeling prisoner a “snitch” in the presence of other inmates is sufficient to state a 12 claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety
• labeling prisoner a “snitch” in the presence of other inmates is sufficient to state a 12 claim of deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety
• upholding a 4 failure to protect claim where Plaintiff “alleged that because he had petitioned prison and 5 government officials for redress of his grievances, [Defendants] had conspired to label him a 6 ‘snitch’ and thereby subject him to retaliation by inmates”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).