Hernandez v. Velasquez

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court of appeals “may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record and presented to the court below” (emphasis added)
• holding that the plaintiff failed to show any indication that muscle atrophy, stiffness, loss of range of motion, and depression “posed a substantial risk of serious harm”
• holding that a court of appeals “may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record and presented to the court below” (emphasis added)
• concluding lockdown, to prevent gang-violence should be expected as an ordinary incidence of prison life
• holding that 12 months in administrative lockdown was not atypical and significant
• holding that 12 months in administrative lockdown was not atypical and significant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).