JAMES B. STANLEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND JOSEPH R. BERTINO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court directs the district court to dismiss Stanley's Bivens claims with prejudice.
This order follows a remand from the Supreme Court of the United States concerning Stanley's Bivens claims. The district court had previously certifie…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
Upon remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987), it is
ORDERED:
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is directed to dismiss with prejudice Stanley’s Bivens claims. 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). The district court considered these claims in its order dated October 28, 1983, and certified these claims for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) on January 31, 1984.
The district court order certified for interlocutory appeal discussed only Stanley’s Bivens claims and not his FTCA or civil rights claims. As a result, the Supreme Court of the United States held that this court lacked jurisdiction of Stanley’s FTCA claims. Accordingly, this order has no effect on the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s FTCA claims. Similarly, this order has no effect on Stanley’s civil rights claims, which are still pending in the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1988)…. In this connection, see Adams v. Wainwright, 804 F. 2d 1526 (11th Cir.1986), modified by Adams v. Dugger, 816 F. 2d 1493 (11th Cir.1987), and Mann v. Dugger, 817 F. 2d 1471 (11th Cir.1987), vacated and rehearing granted en banc by Mann v. Dugger, 828 F. 2d 1498 (11th Cir.1987), where the courts held that instructing the jury that the judge was the ultimate sentencer denigrated the jury role contrary to Tedder and in violation of Caldwell It should be noted under Florida law that all capital punishment juri…
-
Combs v. State, 525 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 1988)…secutor to that effect, violates Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). In so holding, we refuse to apply the Eleventh Circuit’s decisions in Mann v. Dugger, 817 F. 2d 1471, reh’g granted and opinion vacated, 828 F. 2d 1498 (11th Cir.1987), and Adams v. Wainwright, 804 F. 2d 1526 (11th Cir.1986), modified, 816 F. 2d 1493 (11th Cir.1987), petition for cert. filed, 56 U.S.L. W. 3094 (U.S. Jul. 20, 1987) (No. 87-121). We fully address this latter issue because it affect…1 / 2
-
Foster v. State, 518 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1987)…he Eleventh Circuit has interpreted Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), as applicable to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. See also Mann v. Dugger, 817 F. 2d 1471 (11th Cir.), vacated & set for rehearing, 828 F. 2d 1498 (11th Cir.1987); Harich v. Wainwright, 813 F. 2d 1082 (11th Cir.), vacated & set for rehearing, 828 F. 2d 1497 (11th Cir.1987). I believe this is correct and cannot join the majority’s conclusion to the contrary. In Adams, the Eleventh Circuit spec…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1987)