Hayes v. Perotta

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiffs claim that the defendant local governmental unit wrongly refused to provide him with information that he requested was “governed by New York’s Freedom of Information Law”
• dismissing Section 1983 claim where complaint was “devoid of any reference to anything that could be considered [the City’s] policy or custom” (emphasis omitted)
• dismissing Section 1983 claim where complaint was “devoid of any reference to anything that could be considered [the City’s] policy or custom” (emphasis omitted)
• finding Plaintiff’s claims were barred to the extent they arose solely from “‘the “injury” of being convicted and imprisoned’” (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7)
• injuries caused by illegal search itself, separate from the injuries of being convicted and imprisoned, were not barred by Heck
• plaintiff’s claim that the local governmental unit wrongly refused to provide him with information that he requested was “governed by New York’s Freedom of Information Law,” not § 1983

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).