Opinion of the Court — Mejia v. Blanchette

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 11, 2002
Case: Mejia v. Blanchette
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

SUMMARY ORDER This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was submitted by plaintiff pro se and by counsel for defendants. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed. Plaintiff pro se Percy Mejia, a Connecticut State prisoner, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Warren W. Eginton, Judge, dismissing his claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants prison officials violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, principally in connection with the presence of asbestos in the prison. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that defendants who are sued in their official capacities as state employees are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from a claim for damages and because Mejia’s claims have not been exhausted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On appeal, Mejia appears to contend principally (1) that his action was maintainable as a Bivens action (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bure…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.