Jones v. Horne

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a pro se plaintiff must allege “that a District custom or policy caused the claimed violations of his constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “section 1983 liability cannot rest on a respondeat superior theory, whether the person is sued in his official capacity or in his individual capacity”
• noting that “section 1983 liability cannot rest on a respondeat superior theory, whether the person is sued in his official capacity or in his individual capacity”
• upholding dismissal of section 1983 claim where plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant was personally involved the alleged misconduct
• finding plaintiff’s “reliance on Conley . . . and its somewhat more lenient standard governing motions under Rule 12(b)(6), is misplaced” since “[t]he Supreme Court abrogated the Conley formulation in” Twombly
• describing the now-defunct Conley standard as “somewhat more lenient” than the Twombly/Iqbal standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).