Joshua Rich v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that decisions concerning whether to separate prisoners are “precisely the kind of determinations that the discretionary function exception is intended to protect”
• holding that “discretionary conduct cannot be grounded in a policy decision when that conduct is marked by individual carelessness or laziness”
• holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery on a jurisdictional issue because there were \no facts that [the plaintiff] could have uncovered in discovery [that] would establish jurisdiction\
• holding that officers’ failure to properly pat- and wand-search inmate who attacked fellow inmate in rec cage with makeshift knife would not be covered by the discretionary function exception and would, if proven, amount to negligence
• explaining that jurisdictional analysis is intertwined with the merits when it “require[s] the consideration of merits-based evidence”
• stating that a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).