Merriman v. LaHood

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[a plaintiff] must show that the defendants knew of the health dangers and yet refused to remedy the situation, constituting deliberate indifference” (quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that “[a plaintiff] must show that the defendants knew of the health dangers and yet refused to remedy the situation, constituting deliberate indifference” (quotation marks omitted)
• dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust when the complaint noted the plaintiff had not filed a grievance
• denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the plaintiff’s allegations “raise[d] a plausible inference that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the health dangers posed by friable asbestos present at [the] AMKC.”
• “When faced with a pro se complaint, the Court must construe the complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests.” (quoting Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted))
• “[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” (citing In re Crysen/Montenay Energy Co., 226 F.3d 160, 162 (2d Cir. 2000); Harris v. City of N.Y., 186 F.3d 243, 249 (2d Cir. 1999))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).