MAUREEN STOYKA v. MARY GRECZ

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that since Bivens claim was 10 not extended there was no need to review issue of qualified immunity
• dismissing plaintiff’s Bivens claim even though the Bivens issue was not raised in the district court and the district court did not sua sponte address it
• finding the claim differed meaningfully from Bivens because (1) the incident took place in a parking lot rather than the plaintiff’s home, (2) the Department of Homeland Security (DHS
• “This case arose in a parking lot, not a private home as was the case in Bivens.”
• “[A]lthough Byrd alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, as did the plaintiff in Bivens, Byrd’s lawsuit differs from Bivens in several meaningful ways.”
• “Because we do not extend Bivens to [the plaintiff’s] lawsuit, we need not address whether [the defendant] is entitled to qualified immunity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).