Ruff v. Gilless

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for claims arising in New York, “[t]he statute of limitations for Bivens claims is governed by the statute of limitations applicable to New York state law” personal injury claims, which is three years
• holding that for claims arising in New York, “[t]he statute of limitations for Bivens claims is governed by the statute of limitations applicable to New York state law” personal injury claims, which is three years
• recognizing doctrine has been applied to § 1983 claims and applying it to Eighth Amendment Bivens claim
• noting that “whether incarceration in the SHU violates the Eighth Amendment” “depends on the duration and conditions of the confinement”
• explaining that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply ʺto discrete unlawful acts, even where those discrete acts are part of a serial violationʺ (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)
• explaining that an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the conditions of a plaintiff’s confinement “typically accrues only after . . . a prolonged period of time” and holding that “the continuing violation doctrine should be applied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).