James v. Plummer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs’ allegations that one defendant deliberately conducted an inadequate investigation in order to cover up misconduct, and that he did so “at the direction of’ another defendant, were “insufficient to make out a ... claim against either of them”
• finding that prison officials' intentional failure to preserve evidence in order to cover-up fellow officer's failure to protect inmate plaintiff from physical harm could not \form the predicate violation for a conspiracy claim\
• “[N]othing in the statute suggests that PREA intended to establish a private cause of action for allegations of prison rape, and every court to address the issue has determined that PREA cannot support such a cause of action by an inmate.”
• “‘[N]othing in the statute suggests that PREA intended to establish a private cause of action for allegations of prison rape, and every court to address the issue has determined that PREA cannot support such a cause of action by an inmate.’”
• “‘[N]othing in the statute suggests that PREA intended to establish a private cause of action for allegations of prison rape, and every court to address the issue has determined that PREA cannot support such a cause of action by an inmate.’”
• “‘[N]othing in the statute suggests that PREA intended to establish a private cause of action for allegations of prison rape, and every court to address the issue has determined that PREA cannot support such a cause of action by an inmate.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).