Duaut A. Duamutef v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, and P. Almstead

How courts have described this case

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

• Once a court “decide[s] that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity.”
• Once a court “decide[s] that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity”
• “[O]nce we decide that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity . . . .”
• “[O]nce we decide that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity . . . .”
• “That is, once we decide that there is no constitutional violation, there typically is no need to address whether defendants are also protected by qualified immunity—although qualified immunity becomes obvious at that point.”
• “the actions taken by defendants were measured, limited to 30 days, and calculated to ensure that the apparently provocative materials were not an indication of a new security threat by an inmate with a history of advocating violence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).