Christopher John MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark W. SIAS, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that § 1983 and Bivens actions identical except for the requirement of a state actor under § 1983 and federal actor under Bivens
• holding Heck barred pro se Plaintiff’s claims based on actions Plaintiff’s federal probation officer took allegedly outside of the probation officer’s authority in supervising Plaintiff
• noting that Bivens is basically a 1983 claim against a federal officer
• holding “that the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions.”
• applying Heck to claims raised 16 in a Bivens action, and holding that “the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions”
• holding “that the rationale of Heck applies to Bivens actions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).