Case Citator › Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi

Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
696 F.3d 352
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
259 of 259
Citing cases (total)
1,159
Treatment dates
2018
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi has been limited: all 259 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. In a later appeal in the same litigation, the Third Circuit held that, after Ziglar v. Abbasi, Bistrian could not obtain Bivens damages for punitive detention or First Amendment retaliation.
More on how this was screened

It preserved his failure-to-protect claim. The five newly reviewed opinions applied Bistrian's other rules or reported the later appeal's result.

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.

1,159 later cases cite Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi; 259 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 Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi?

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

Limited

  • After Abbasi, the Third Circuit rejected Bivens damages for the punitive-detention and First Amendment retaliation claims that the 2012 Bistrian opinion had permitted to proceed, while preserving the failure-to-protect claim.

    Bistrian v. Levi · Third Circuit · filed

    As we will explain, Bistrian has a cognizable Bivens cause of action for the alleged failure of the defendants to protect him from a substantial risk of serious injury at the hands of other inmates. The prisoner-on-prisoner violence is not a new context for Bivens claims, and no special factors counsel against allowing a failure-to-protect cause of action. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s denial of summary judgment with respect to that claim. We must, however, reverse the denial of summary judgment on Bistrian’s claims for punitive detention and retaliation because they are novel and special factors counsel against extending Bivens coverage to such claims.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi 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