Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Santiago Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided March 24, 2016No. 14-14611Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJill Pryor, Circuit Judge

I join fully in the majority’s thorough analysis in Part. Ill addressing subject-matter jurisdiction. But I dissent- from Part IV of the majority opinion holding that plaintiff Santiago Alvarez has no remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). More specifically, I dissent from the majority’s opinion affirming the district court’s dismissal of Alvarez’s claim against defendant Juan Munoz, although I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the dismissal of Alvarez’s claims against defendants Robert…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  5. Zadvydas v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API