Settles v. United States Parole Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts may consider “facts developed in the record beyond the complaint” to assess standing
• holding that the court may consider “facts developed in the record beyond the complaint” to assess standing
• holding that to demonstrate injury-in-fact for an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege that the government imposed a barrier that makes it more difficult to obtain a benefit than other members of a similarly situated group
• confirming that “a cause of action under § 1983 will lie against the individual members of the Commission when acting pursuant to the Revitalization Act § 11231”
• noting that “a cause of action under § 1983 will lie against the individual members of the [United States Parole] Commission” when, “pursuant to the [National Capital] Revitalization Act,” they preside in matters involving D.C. Code offenders
• reaffirming the holding in Fletcher that “a cause of action under § 1983 will lie against the individual members of the [USPC] when acting pursuant to the Revitalization Act § 11231”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).