Anselmo Soto v. Hans Walker, Supt., Auburn, C.F., T.H. Giltner, Lt., Auburn, C.F., Donald Selsky, Docs., Albany

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that violations of state procedural requirements are not cognizable claims under section 1983
• noting that a violation of a state procedural statute alone, without a due process violation, “would not be enough generally to establish a constitutional claim”
• noting that a violation of a state procedural statute alone, without a due process violation, “would not be enough generally to establish a constitutional claim”
• noting that a violation of a state procedural statute alone, without a due process violation, “would not be enough generally to establish a constitutional claim”
• noting that a violation of a state procedural statute alone without a due process violation, “would not be enough generally to establish a constitutional claim”
• instructing district courts not to be “misled by [a pro se party’s] inability to articulate pellucidly the strongest basis for [a] claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).