Patterson v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims are cognizable under Bivens
• stating that “a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity” at the motion to dismiss stage
• noting that courts do not consider matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, unless the documents are attached, incorporated by reference, or necessarily relied upon in the plaintiff’s complaint
• noting the D.C. Circuit has recognized “a First Amendment right not to be arrested in retaliation for one’s speech” (citing Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 195-96 (D.C. Cir. 1977))
• reciting the elements of a Bivens action: “(1) the defendant violated a federal constitutional right of 43 the plaintiff; (2) the right was clearly established; (3) the defendant was a federal actor by virtue of acting under color of federal law; and (4
• “[T]he D.C. Circuit has expressly recognized that there is a First Amendment right not to be arrested in retaliation for one’s speech.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).