Martez Travon Vrana v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims presented a new Bivens context due to differing legal mandates between an officer of the Federal Protective Service and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
• noting that “government officials are 19 entitled to raise a qualified[-]immunity defense immediately, on a motion to dismiss the complaint, to protect against burdens of discovery and other pretrial procedures” (citing Behrens 20 v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 308 (1996))
• noting 26 that Congress “has not created a general cause of action to redress violations of the 27 Constitution by federal officers.”
• describing the DHS Inspector General “grievance procedure” as “comparable to the remedy deemed adequate in Egbert’
• reporting to the Department of Homeland Security 23 Inspector General as an alternative remedial structure
• collecting similar holdings from the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).