No. 21-655
Max Ray Butler v. S. Porter, et al.
Tags: adequate-medical-care bivens bivens-remedy civil-rights constitutional-rights eighth-amendment federal-courts federal-prisoner federal-prisoners medical-care
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FirstAmendment FifthAmendment Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity FirstAmendment FifthAmendment Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-02-25
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Bivens remedies are categorically unavailable to federal prisoners in any other context
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED In Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980), the Court recognized a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of a federal prisoner’s Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. The question presented is whether Bivens remedies are categorically unavailable to federal prisoners in any other context.
Docket Entries
2022-02-28
Rehearing DENIED.
2022-02-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/25/2022.
2022-02-04
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent S. Porter, et al. to respond filed.
2021-11-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 3, 2021)
Attorneys
Max Ray Butler
Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga — Jones Day, Petitioner
Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga — Jones Day, Petitioner
S. Porter, et al.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent