Legal Opinion

Cote v. Murphy

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided October 21, 2005No. 04-2538PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs/appellants are four individuals who have been adjudicated to be “sexually dangerous persons” and civilly committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center under Mass.G.L. ch. 123A, §§ 1-16. In this pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they challenge the Center’s policy of “double-bunking” its residents, claiming that such a practice violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Center’s management plan. Upon motion from defendants, the district court dismissed the amended complaint, inter alia, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs have timely appealed but have chosen…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. RomeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Nami v. FauverCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  5. Block v. RutherfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Healey v. DennehyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2014
  2. Perry v. DickhautDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2015
  3. (PC) Juengain v. RamirezDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  4. Affholter v. Citigroup Global Markets IncDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2024
  5. CANTRELL v. BRUNSWICK MAINE POLICEDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2024

5 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