Frederick T. Ray v. C.O. Kertes C.O. Stolz C.O. Reed C.O. Rogers Lt. Nash Lt. Hicks Lt. A. Smith Capt. Almanshifer R. Norris Tim Launtz, Frederick Ray

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the PLRA does not impose a heightened pleading requirement and stating that “courts should narrowly interpret statutory language to avoid heightened pleading standards”
• holding that exhaustion under the PLRA is an affirmative defense to be pled and proven by defendants
• holding that the PLRA does not impose a heightened pleading requirement and stating that “courts should narrowly interpret statutory language to avoid heightened pleading standards”
• holding that a prisoner plaintiff has no obligation to allege in his complaint that he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
• holding that exhaustion requirement in § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense that may be waived or forfeited
• holding that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense and finding that the district court erred in imposing an improperly heightened pleading standard that required the prisoner not only to plead, but also to prove, exhaustion in the complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).