James Romero v. Guy Peterson Ivan Rael, in Their Individual Capacities, and William C. Schaab Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that eross-deputization not a determinative factor of whether officers were federal or tribal actors
• holding that the presence of “excusable neglect” under Rule 4(a)(5) “should be determined on the basis of the common sense meaning of the two simple words”
• holding that the presence of “excusable neglect” under Rule 4(a)(5) “should be determined on the basis of the common sense meaning of the two simple words”
• stating, in Bivens action, that “Defendants are . . . federal actors if they act jointly with, under the direction of, or on behalf of the federal government”
• on remand district court should consider whether defendants were wearing federal agency uniforms or badges in determining whether they were federal actors
• “To state a Bivens action, plaintiff must allege circumstances sufficient to characterize defendants as federal actors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).