Cusamano v. Sobek

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that compliance with this Court's local rules is \not merely technical in nature.\
• holding that compliance with this Court's local rules is \not merely technical in nature.\
• finding that a false misbehavior report alone cannot “constitute a violation of the United States Constitution”
• noting that conclusions made in a screening order do not immunize the pleading “from attack under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6
• rejecting the party’s argument that “the Court is essentially estopped from dismissing [a] claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b), because it reviewed and accepted [the] Complaint”
• rejecting the argument that “the Court is essentially estopped from dismissing [a] claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A (b), because it reviewed and accepted [the] Complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).