Figueroa v. Rivera-Garcia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that after seventeen months, dismissal was proper as to defendant who had never been identified and served
• holding that § 1983 action was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), as habeas is the exclusive means by which to challenge collaterally an unconstitutional Puerto Rican conviction
• recognizing dicta from the Spencer concurrences and dissent but choosing to follow directly applicable precedent
• holding, in the alternative, that dismissal was proper pursuant to Rule 4(m) where the plaintiff failed to identify and serve an unknown defendant within 17 months of filing the complaint
• affirming Rule 4(m) dismissal of John Doe defendants after seventeen months during which plaintiffs made no effort to identify them
• affirming Rule 4(m) dismissal of John Doe defendants after seventeen months during which plaintiffs made no effort to identify them

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).