Alperovich v. London Cottages, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an 8 isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”
• holding that plaintiff stated a retaliation claim against prison officials who allegedly took adverse action against him, even though his protected conduct was a lawsuit against officials at a different prison filed a short time earlier
• holding that two instances of mail interference were insufficient to state a claim because the plaintiff did not allege that the interference with his mail either constituted an ongoing practice of unjustified censorship, caused him to miss court deadlines, or prejudiced his legal actions
• explaining that “[i]nsulting or disrespectful comments directed at an inmate generally do not rise” to the level of adverse conduct
• holding an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation
• noting that “an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).