Moss v. U.S. Secret Service
- Decided
- July 16, 2009
- Docket
- 07-36018
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,161 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the district court’s deferral of the summary judgment motion — Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand (2023)
- holding that the allegations in 22 the complaint “must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief” — National Mechanical Services, Inc v. Kinsale Insurance Company (2022)
- concluding that a plaintiff’s complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to allege a constitutional right violation, which is required by Bivens — Walden v. United States (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-Appellees, individually and on behalf of a class of people similarly situated, allege that two United States Secret Service (“Secret Service”) Agents, Tim Wood and Rob Savage (together, the “Agents” or “Defendants”), violated their First Amendment rights when they ordered the relocation of a demonstration critical of then-President George W. Bush. They sued the Agents for damages under the implied cause of action first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. [*965] 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
The Agents filed a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, prompting this interlocutory appeal. Defendants also seek review of the district court’s deferral of their alternative motion for summary judgment.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (2009)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.