892 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Facey v. Dickhaut’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is well established that the courts may consider exhibits attached to the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss. Recently, Chief Judge Wolf of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts summarized that: [o]rdinarily, a court will not consider documents outside of the pleadings in a motion to dismiss. Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10, 15 (1st Cir.2009); Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993). From this rule, the First Circuit makes a “narrow exception for documents the authenticity of which [is] not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for documents central to plaintiffs’ claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.” Id. at 3-4 ; see Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust, Co., 137 F.3d 12, 16-17 (1st Cir.1998) (When “a complaint’s factual allegations are expressly linked to — and admittedly dependent upon — a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butler v. Candlewood Road Partners, LLC (In re Raymond)

2. “The complaint alleges that “[t]he Defendants” were aware of the feud between the Bloods and the Gangster Disciples, that the plaintiff is a “known member” of the Bloods, that “[a]ll prisoners” are checked for enemy situations before being housed, and that “[t]he Defendants” placed him on the South Side of the facility, where all the Gangster Disciples reside. It further alleges that Mendonsa assigns “all prisoners” to their housing areas, and that Raymond is the Assignment Officer and carries out his orders. Although the plaintiff might have more artfully stated a claim against these officials by alleging that Mendonsa and Raymond assigned him to be housed on the South Side, both of these allegations can be readily inferred from the complaint itself. “[L]iberally construed,” the pro se complaint sufficiently alleges that Mendonsa and Raymond knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff by housing him in an area with his known enemies.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 F. Supp. 3d 12 - Facey v. Dickhaut

3. “Examining the “particular facts of the case” as alleged against Mendonsa and Raymond, the court also finds that “a reasonable defendant would have understood that his conduct violated the [plaintiffs] constitutional rights.” Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 266, 269 . It was well established at the time of the alleged incident that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they disregard a known, substantial risk to an inmate’s health or safety, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 ; Cortes-Quinones, 842 F.2d at 561 , and the complaint adequately alleges that Mendonsa and Raymond knowingly disregarded the risk that the plaintiff would face if housed with members of the Gangster Disciples.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 F. Supp. 3d 12 - Facey v. Dickhaut