CA7: Claim of excessive force in arrest by federal agent does not state new type of Bivens claim

A claim of excessive force during an arrest by a federal agent does not state a new type of Bivens claim, and it can proceed. Snowden v. Henning, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16221 (7th Cir. June 27, 2023). (This was under submission since November 2021.)

The stop for not signaling lane movement soon enough was reasonable. Anderson v. State, 2023 WY 65, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 66 (June 26, 2023).*

Defendant was released from jail, gets picked up by the Chicago PD, taken to an interrogation room, and questioned about a murder. He was not under arrest, knew it, and agreed to cooperate at least until it become clear he wasn’t free to leave. People v. Mrdjenovich, 2023 IL App (1st) 191699, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 229 (June 27, 2023).*

“Here, the state appellate court could not determine whether a motion to suppress would have been successful based on the record before it, but the appellate court, in reviewing the evidence presented at trial, found no basis that such a motion would have succeeded.” Therefore, 2255 petitioner doesn’t show that the state court’s conclusion there was no ineffective assistance of counsel was reasonable. Lawson v. Warden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110252 (S.D. Ohio June 26, 2023).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.