Case Citator › Haynesworth v. Miller

Haynesworth v. Miller

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
D.C. Circuit
Citation
820 F.2d 1245
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
61 of 61
Citing cases (total)
61
Treatment dates
2006–2018
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Haynesworth v. Miller was overruled in part on the proof required for retaliatory prosecution claims. All 61 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court required proof that the prosecution lacked probable cause, displacing Haynesworth's contrary rule. A later district court declined to extend Haynesworth's Bivens remedy to alleged federal pressure on a private organization. The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

61 later cases cite Haynesworth v. Miller; 61 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Haynesworth v. Miller?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court displaced Haynesworth's rule that a retaliatory prosecution plaintiff need not show the absence of probable cause.

    Hartman v. Moore · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Others, including the District of Columbia Circuit, impose no such requirement. See, e. g., Poole v. County of Otero, 271 F. 3d 955, 961 (CA10 2001); Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F. 2d 1245, 1256-1257 (CADC 1987). We granted certiorari, 545 U. S. 1138 (2005), to resolve the Circuit split and now reverse. ... Because showing an absence of probable cause will have high probative force, and can be made mandatory with little or no added cost, it makes *266sense to require such a showing as an element of a plaintiff’s case, and we hold that it must be pleaded and proven.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The court declined to extend Haynesworth's retaliatory prosecution remedy to alleged pressure on a private group to remove a volunteer.

    Storms v. Shinseki · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · filed

    In any event, the "new context" inquiry does not end even if courts have extended Bivens to the relevant constitutional right. Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1859-60. The D.C. Circuit has recognized First Amendment Bivens claims for retaliatory arrest, Dellums v. Powell , 566 F.2d 167, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and retaliatory prosecution, Haynesworth v. Miller , 820 F.2d 1245, 1255-57 (D.C. Cir. 1987), abrogated in part by Hartman , 547 U.S. 250, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 . The Circuit has also assumed that Bivens was available for a prisoner who asserted retaliatory restrictions in violation of the First Amendment, dismissing those claims on qualified immunity grounds. Aref v. Lynch , 833 F.3d 242, 269 (D.C. Cir. 2016). But even assuming these cases are still good law, see Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1859 (finding that the lower court erred in its "new context" analysis because the context is new if "the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court) (emphasis added), they are all strikingly different from Mr. Storms' allegations. This case is not brought by a prisoner, and the Plaintiff does not suggest that the Defendants arrested or prosecuted him. Instead, Mr. Storms claims that the Defendants persuaded a non-governmental organization to remove him from a volunteer position. Under Abbasi 's meaningful difference test, see id. at 1859-60, Mr. Storms' allegations present a new context for a proposed Bivens claim in this Circuit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Haynesworth v. Miller and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace