Cases compared
Christopher Zook v. Scott Fuqua vs. Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement vs. Richard Vasquez v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
No. 25-1108No. 25-1223No. 25-1246
Side by side
| Fact | Christopher Zook v. Scott Fuqua | Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios v. Vernon Liggins, Acting Field Office Director, Baltimore, Maryland, Immigration and Customs Enforcement | Richard Vasquez v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1108 | 25-1223 | 25-1246 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether a district court may, or must, consider objective video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage when that evidence is central to the complaint and blatantly contradicts or utterly discredits the allegations of a plaintiff's complaint in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action, given a circuit split between the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits (which permit consideration of such videos) and the Tenth Circuit (which does not)? 2. Whether a § 1983 plaintiff can satisfy the plausibility standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), by strategically omitting known facts, here, that the decedent fled the police in a reckless manner by vehicle, fired a weapon at officers just prior to being shot, and was running toward an occupied civilian vehicle at the time of the shooting, when including those facts would defeat the claim? 3. Whether Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), standing alone, clearly establishes a Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at the pleading stage in a factually complex officer-involved shooting in which the decedent had moments earlier fired a weapon at officers, ignored repeated commands, and fled toward an occupied civilian vehicle, contrary to this Court's repeated instructions that clearly established law must be defined with specificity and particularity to the facts of the case? | Whether, under EAJA, "any civil action" encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention? | 1. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) impose a “reasonable attorney” or a “reasonable applicant” test for due diligence? If the former, are there exceptions to account for egregious misconduct by an applicant’s lawyer? 2. Would construing the AEDPA to bar merits review in a capital case of a substantial IAC claim, one not previously reviewed on the merits by any court, violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. When an applicant is unaware of the relevant facts when he files a first-in-time application for habeas relief, are later-filed Brady and Napue/Giglio claim “second or successive”? 4. Is a court reviewing a federal habeas application, as a matter of due process or otherwise, required to resolve disputes over authority to speak for the State? What level of deference is owed to the State’s position expressed by an authorized representative? |
| Summary | Police officers Christopher Zook and others ask the Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit ruling that allowed Scott Fuqua’s federal excessive-force claim to proceed. The petition concerns whether courts at the motion-to-dismiss stage may rely on video evidence that contradicts the complaint, whether a plaintiff may omit known facts that would undermine the claim, and whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. | This case asks whether a person who wins a habeas corpus challenge to civil immigration detention may recover attorney’s fees and costs from the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Court will decide whether such a habeas case counts as a “civil action” under that law. | Richard Vasquez asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to consider his federal habeas claims on the merits. He argues that the court wrongly treated his later filing as barred under AEDPA’s rules for successive petitions, even though he says his lawyers’ serious failures and the State’s alleged nondisclosure of false evidence prevented him from raising the claims earlier. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.