James Cameron v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a complaint naming the Attorney General and BOP Director as defendants based on respondeat superior, failed to state a Bivens claim without specific allegations of personal involvement
• concluding that a complaint naming the Attorney General and the BOP Director as defendants based on theory of respondeat superior, without allegations specifying their involvement in the case, does not state a claim against them under Bivens
• concluding that a complaint naming Attorney General and the BOP Director as defendants based on theory of respondeat superior, without allegations specifying their involvement in the case, did not state Bivens claim against them
• concluding that a complaint naming the Attorney General and the BOP Director as defendants based on theory of respondeat superior, without allegations specifying their involvement in the case, does not state a claim against them under Bivens
• concluding that a, complaint naming .the Attorney .General, and. the BOP Director as defendants based on a theory of responde-at superior, without allegations specifying their personal involvement in the case, does not state a claim against them under Bivens
• holding BOP Director could not be held liable in absence of participation in “any decision or approv[al of] any policy that related to the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).