Pahls v. Thomas

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 district court erred by failing to conduct “a differentiated analysis” of each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged First Amendment violation
• holding that active-voice yet undifferentiated allegations that “the defendants” infringed a plaintiff’s rights are 8 insufficient to plead personal participation
• holding that active-voice yet undifferentiated allegations that “the defendants” infringed a plaintiff’s rights are insufficient to plead personal participation
• holding that “collective allegations” regarding the alleged wrongdoing do not state a viable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
• recognizing that Bivens is “the federal analog to a § 1983 suit”
• noting that “a claim of viewpoint discrimination in contravention of the First Amendment requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted with a viewpoint-discriminatory purpose”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).