Hernandez v. Parker

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that no procedural due process claim could lie for a lawful property seizure incident to arrest
• recognizing that procedural due process is satisfied for property rights when “there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that repleading would be “futile” in light of pro se complaint's substantive deficiencies
• holding that “it is generally ‘sufficient, where only property rights are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination.’” (quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass'n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 303 (1981)
• assuming without deciding that Amtrak is subject to suit under § 1983
• “[An] [a]mendment is futile if it fails ‘to cure prior deficiencies.’” (quoting Panther Partners Inc., 681 F.3d at 119)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).