Kane v. Winn

How courts have described this case

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

• treating petition for habeas corpus as a civil rights claim where the petitioner was pro se
• treating an improperly filed habeas petition as if it were filed as a civil rights claim
• declining to dismiss a habeas petition, instead treating it as a civil rights claim
• “[M]ost challenges to the constitutional adequacy of medical care should proceed as civil rights claims under Bivens or Section 1983.”
• “This Court is of the view that, with the exception of extreme cases where transfer or release might be a necessary remedy, most challenges to the constitutional adequacy of medical care should proceed as civil rights claims.... ”
• collecting cases dismissing habeas petitions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).