green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 18×
175.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 ·
…federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the challenged activity.
at p. 1343
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the final chevron factor weighs dispositively against retro- active application, for it would yield substantial inequitable results to hold that the respondent slept on his rights at a time when he could not have known the time limitation that the law imposed upon him.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
McCabe v. MacAulay
But see Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir.1986) (interpreting Scott as “explicitly restricting] the statutory coverage to conspiracies motivated by racial basis”).
cited
Cited "but see"
New Port Largo, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Charles H. Netter and Stuart D. Marr, New Port Largo, Etc. v. Monroe County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Kenneth Sorensen, Board Member of County Commissioners, Monroe Planning & Zoning, Donald Schloesser, Commissioners Board, Alison Fahrer, Commissioners Board, Curt Blair, Commissioners Board, and George Dolezal, Commissioners Board, Wilhelmenia Harvey, New Port Largo, Inc., Charles H. Netter and Stuart D. Marr, New Port Largo, Etc. v. Monroe County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Kenneth Sorensen, Etc.
But cf. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 , 1342 n. 5 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 928 , 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987).
cited
Cited "but see"
New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe County
But cf. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 , 1342 n. 5 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 928 , 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Lewis v. Pearson Foundation, Inc.
But see Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir.1986) (interpreting Scott to restrict "statutory coverage to conspiracies motivated by racial bias"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 928 , 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987); Harrison v. KVAT Food Management, 766 F.2d 155, 160-63 (4th Cir.1985) (statute does not protect Republicans as a class); Wilhelm v. Continental Title Co., 720 F.2d 1173, 1177 (10th Cir.1983) (statute does not protect class of handicapped persons), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1103 , 104 S.Ct. 1601 , 80 L.Ed.2d 131 (1984) 6 Appellees also argue that Lewis' complaint fails…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Lewis v. Pearson Foundation, Inc.
But see Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir.1986) (interpreting Scott to restrict “statutory coverage'to conspiracies motivated by racial bias"), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 , 107 S.Ct. 928 , 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987); Harrison v. KVAT Food Management, 766 F.2d 155, 160-63 (4th Cir.1985) (statute does not protect Republicans as a class); Wilhelm v. Continental Title Co., 720 F.2d 1173, 1177 (10th Cir.1983) (statute does not protect class of handicapped persons), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1103 , 104 S.Ct. 1601 , 80 L.Ed.2d 131 (1984). .
discussed
Cited "but see"
S.W. Daniel, Inc. v. Urrea
But see Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 , 1342 n. 5 (9th Cir.1986) (declining the invitation to apply Wilson). 8 .The plaintiffs remind the court that § 1983 acts as a supplement to state remedies, whereas Bivens in some cases creates a remedy which would be otherwise unavailable in state court because of principles of federal immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Engel v. Paragon Systems, Inc
federal officers acting under federal authority are 10 immune from suit under section 1983 unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the 11 challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arellano, Jr. v. San Diego, County of
the supreme court . . 23 . explicitly restricted the statutory coverage to conspiracies motivated by 24 racial bias.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pearce v. City of Portland
plaintiff is not expected to plead evidence or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Adamson v. Pierce County
state action 15 designed to retaliate against and chill political expression strikes at the heart of the first 16 amendment
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
(PS) Petersen v. Sims
federal officers acting under 23 federal authority are immune from suit under section 1983 unless the state or its agents 24 significantly participated in the challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. BOP Director
bivens actions, the judicially crafted counterpart to section 1983, enable victims of federal misconduct to sue the individual federal wrongdoers responsible for the transgression of their rights.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tremaine Daniels v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
because plaintiffs have alleged that fbi agents acted with the impermissible motive of curbing protected speech, they have asserted a claim properly cognizable through 27 a bivens-type action directly under the first amendment
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
George Aydelotte v. Town of Skykomish
state action designed to retaliate against and chill political expression strikes at the heart of the first amendment.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Skwira Ex Rel. Estate of Skwira v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
blinding circuit precedent forecloses us from considering such an extension of kubrick
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Russell v. United States Department Of The Army
federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit under section 1983
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chavez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
bivens actions, the judicially crafted counterpart to section 1983....
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mendocino Environmental Center, Judi Bari v. Mendocino County, Richard W. Held, Frank Doyle, Jr., David R. Williams, John Rikes
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit under section 1983 unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cabrera v. Martin
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Isabel Cabrera, Manuel Perez, Roberto Ixta, Teresa Mendez, Andrea Pineda, Rudolfo Castillo, Maria Lizazaga v. Lynn Martin , Secretary of Labor, John Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, James Lake, Acting Regional Administrator, Region Ix, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California, Isabel Cabrera, Manuel Perez, Roberto Ixta, Teresa Mendez, Andrea Pineda, Rudolfo Castillo, Maria Lizazaga v. Lynn Martin , Secretary of Labor, John Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, James Lake, Acting Regional Administrator, Region Ix, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stefan Michalopoulos v. United States of America, et al.
ederal officers 14 acting under federal authority are immune from suit under 1983 unless the state or its agents 15 significantly participated in the challenged activity.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
(PS) Johnson v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
federal officers acting under federal authority are immune from suit under 10 section 1983 unless the state or its agents significantly participated in the challenged activity.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
the final chevron factor weighs dispositively against retro- active application, for it would yield substantial inequitable results to hold that the respondent slept on his rights at a time when he could not have known the time limitation that the law imposed upon him.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Francisco Garfias-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
the final chevron factor weighs dispositively against retro- active application, for it would yield substantial inequitable results to hold that the respondent slept on his rights at a time when he could not have known the time limitation that the law imposed upon him.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elisha Martin v. Theodore Brook
Qualified immunity is not solely for liability, but rather, it is also immunity from suit itself.26 The Supreme Court has emphasized that even “pretrial matters [. . .] can be peculiarly disruptive of effective 21 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). 23 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgie Anufriev v. Silverton Police Department, Marion County Sheriff’s Department, Haley Hibbs, Jonathan Lamoreaux, Elena Posiadlo, and David Posiadlo
Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy Lalonde and Theresa Lalonde v. City of Ogdensburg, et al.
No. 80 at 11–12 (“Response to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings”) (citing Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 , 180–81 (2d Cir. 2009) (Section 1983); Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, 287 F. Supp. 3d 290, 305 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (Section 1985); Leonard v. United States, 6333 F.2d 599 , 613 (2d Cir. 1980) (Section 1983); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986) (Sections 1985 and 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center
FCC is a prison facility operated by DOC, and therefore, cannot be sued in federal 22 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). 24 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vincent L. Roberts v. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Kelly Fields
A state law claim may only proceed in federal court if the claim is supplemental to a cognizable federal claim, 18 or if the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the 14 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 15 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). 16 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 393–94 (1989). 18 A federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that arise Case No. 4:25-cv-00057-SLG, Roberts v. Fairbank…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Spencer D. Johnson v. Jennifer Winkelman, David Sparks, and Travis Welch
P. 8(a)(2). 15 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). 16 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). 18 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillip Michael Angellan v. Demetrios Kargas and Nancy Dahlstrom
P. 8(a)(2). 17 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). 18 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 19 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vincent Lawrence Roberts v. Fairbanks Correctional Center and Anchorage Correctional Complex
P. 20(a)(2). 26 28 U.S.C. § 1654 . 27 See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-attorney plaintiff may not attempt to pursue claim on behalf of others in a representative capacity); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 , 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-attorney party may not represent other plaintiffs). 28 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 29 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tyson C. Hillyer v. Disciplinary Officer Gutzman, Correctional Officer Townsend, and Correctional Officer Kenna
First, 21 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). 23 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995). 24 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 393–94 (1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Chapa, Jr. v. Alaska Regional Hospital, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.23 The “color of law” or “state actor” requirement is “a jurisdictional requisite for a Section 1983 action.”24 A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a defendant is a state actor, and there is a presumption that private individuals and entities do not act under the “color of state law” within the meaning of § 1983.25 20 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 21 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (citing Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ronald Sutherland v. Dr. James Bales, et al.
There is a “presumption that conduct by private actors is not state action.”29 Generally, private doctors and hospitals are not considered to be state actors.30 And yet the Supreme Court has held that a physician who was under contract with the State to provide medical services to inmates at a state prison on a part-time basis acted under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983 when he treated the inmate.31 26 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c). 27 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 28 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 393–94 (1989). 29 Florer v. Congregation Pidyon…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.
To state a § 1983 claim, “a plaintiff must ‘plead that (1) the 7 defendants acted under color of state law and (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the 8 Constitution or federal statutes.’” WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367 , 372 (9th Cir. 9 1999) (en banc) (quoting Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986)). 10 Plaintiff fails to meet either element.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicole Crosby v. State of Idaho
Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1344 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Conner v. Dr. Kate Wilks; Centurion of Idaho, LLC; Dr. Haggard; Tomi
Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1344 (9th Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frederick George Williams v. Katherine H. Lybrand, et al.
Therefore, Plaintiff cannot maintain this civil rights action in federal court against Tribal 1 Docket 1. 2 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald G. Carroll, Jr. v. Fairbanks Correctional Center, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.25 20 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 21 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). 22 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 23 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). 24 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pharoah Akhenaten v. Cordova Center – GEO Care, Tua, and Vie Vie
The fact that the same facility also houses state prisoners under a separate State of Alaska 16 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). 17 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)). 18 See In-Custody Treatment Services, GEO Reentry Services, https://www.geogroup.com/in- custody-treatment-services. 19 Agyeman v. Corr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamisha Lewis-Junge v. Nesbett Courthouse, et al.
Instead, it provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal statutes.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right, the defendant’s action must either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution or an e…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Claiborne
v.
Claiborne
84-1294.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 4, 1986.
781 F.2d 1334
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the order denying hearing en banc:
Judges Ferguson and Reinhardt in their dissents raise a number of serious questions calling for en banc consideration. I voted to grant the en banc petition and feel constrained to dissent from our court’s refusal to do so.