Johnson v. Killian

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 petitioner’s 2005 grievance “was sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to” the same complained-of conduct that continued through 2007
• holding that prisoner was not required file additional grievance challenging new warden’s renewed enforcement of same policy that prisoner complained about in an earlier grievance against the previous warden
• explaining that, at summary judgment stage, the court must draw all rea- sonable inferences in non-movant’s favor
• stating that at when deciding a motion for summary judgment, courts are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.”
• noting that the Court, on summary judgment, is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought”
• “[P]risoners must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules—rules that are defined 5 not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).