Buchheit v. Green

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a claim “is merely seeking to address alleged past harms rather than prevent prospective violations of federal law, [the court] can only reasonably categorize such relief as retrospective”
• noting that screening “a complaint without 26 benefit of an adversarial presentation if often an uncertain and time-consuming task.”
• noting that courts have flexibility in deciding when dismissal pursuant to PLRA’s screening provisions is appropriate
• holding nothing in § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to screen a case for merit before granting in forma pauperis status
• implying that merits screening often occurs before service, but concluding that the statutory screening requirements do not impose a duty to screen or review before service
• noting that, although not required, \screening might be a good practice and more efficient\ before considering an IFP application, and observing that \the language of the present rule ... provides needed flexibility\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).