Jerry McCOTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that pro se litigants are 20 held to lower standard of brief-writing than attorneys and addressing the arguments 21 presented in plaintiff’s “woefully inadequate” one-page brief because the brief set forth “a 22 discernible, albeit unsupported, argument”
• “[T]his court has held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not provide a right to judicial review of an adverse EEOC determination.” (citation omitted)
• a claim regarding interference with an EEOC investigation is not about a condition of employment and “therefore not cognizable as a separate cause of action in a judicial proceeding brought under Title VII”
• consid- ering the appellant’s “woefully inadequate” one-page brief that “set[] forth a discernible, albeit unsupported, argument” but warning pro se lit- igants that “[h]enceforth, … this court may dismiss an appeal where the brief submitted contains no identifiable argument”
• consid- ering the appellant’s “woefully inadequate” one-page brief that “set[] forth a discernible, albeit unsupported, argument” but warning pro se lit- igants that “[h]enceforth, … this court may dismiss an appeal where the brief submitted contains no identifiable argument”
• consid- ering the appellant’s “woefully inadequate” one-page brief that “set[] forth a discernible, albeit unsupported, argument” but warning pro se lit- igants that “[h]enceforth, … this court may dismiss an appeal where the brief submitted contains no identifiable argument”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).