Jackson v. Onondaga County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that profane or threatening language in addressing corrections staff is not protected speech
• holding that profane or threatening language in addressing corrections staff is not protected speech
• noting that “when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, all normal rules of pleading are not absolutely suspended” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
• dismissing the plaintiff's procedural due process claim where he was allegedly confined to SHU for 49 days and the complaint failed to allege any facts regarding the conditions imposed while in SHU
• finding “[w]here a non-movant fails to adequately oppose a properly supported factual assertion made in a motion for summary judgment, a district court has no duty to perform an independent review of the record to find proof of a factual dispute”
• “when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, all normal rules of pleading are not absolutely suspended” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).