Legal Opinion
Harris v. Fulwood
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided October 30, 2013No. Civil Action No. 2012-1215PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, challenges on constitutional grounds his parole revocation proceedings conducted by the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”). See generally Compl. [Dkt. # 1]. He seeks to “vacate [the] revocation hearing” and $507 million in monetary damages. Compl. at 11. Plaintiff sues Commission Chairman Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Hearing Examiner Paul Howard, and unidentified individuals 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…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Morgan v. U.S. Parole Comm'nCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2016
- Fludd v. MitchellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Epps v. GrayDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Johnson v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- McNair v. SmootDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.