Clifton Carl Lamar v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that each defendant must personally participate in the alleged constitutional violation to be held liable
• concluding that the continuing violation doctrine did not save an inmate’s Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference against four defendants who had no interactions with the inmate within the two-year period preceding the filing of the underlying action
• noting that “even if we were to apply that [ongoing deprivation] doctrine, it would not save Vasquez’s [§ 1983] claims.”
• stating that “the continuing-violation ‘doctrine is triggered by continuing unlawful acts but not by continuing damages from the initial violation’” (quoting Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2017))
• stating that “the continuing-violation ‘doctrine is triggered by continuing unlawful acts but not by continuing damages from the initial violation’” (quoting Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2017))
• finding that “[t]he claim accrued once Vasquez 10 knew Defendants’ deliberate indifference caused him substantial harm, even 11 though the full extent of the injury [wa]s not then known or predictable” 12 (emphasis added) (quoting Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).