Legal Opinion
Fenwick v. United States
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 8, 2010No. Civil Action 07-2330 (PLF)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Fenwick claims that individual defendants Andrew Pudimott, Jeremy Fischer, and John Mickle — all Deputy United States Marshals — violated his Fourth Amendment rights and committed the common law torts of false, imprisonment, assault, and battery against him. He seeks damages from the individual defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and from the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Currently pending before the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Osborn v. HaleySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- John Stanton v. District of Columbia Court of AppealsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Fenwick v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Pollard v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Patock v. U.S. Department of the InteriorDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Arunachalam v. International Business MacHines CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
- Baptiste v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLCDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2025
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.