Lebron-Rios v. U.S. Marshall

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where plaintiffs “still had an opportunity to file timely administrative charges at the time the district court dismissed their claims,” dismissal should have been without prejudice
• holding that district court’s dismissal “with prejudice” only applied to question of whether plaintiffs failed to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies, and not to the merits of plaintiffs’ substantive claims
• “Whether the limitations period had expired . . . is not for us to decide. [That] . . . is a matter for the responsible agency in the first instance, and for the district court in the next.”
• “Whether the limitations period had expired . . . is not for us to decide. [T]he question . . . is a matter for the responsible agency in the first instance, and for the district court in the next.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).