Ned Hughes v. Charles Lott

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the running of the applicable statute of limitations is a sufficient ground for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)
• holding that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i), a district court properly dismissed a § 1983 claim as frivolous prior to service where it was apparent beyond doubt that the statute of limitations barred the claims
• recognizing the running of the applicable statute of limitations as a sufficient ground for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)
• stating that courts construe pro se pleadings liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys
• stressing that a district court should consider whether the pro se prisoner’s complaint could be construed liberally as requesting nominal damages
• explaining that “§ 1915 dismissals with prejudice would have a res judicata effect on future in forma pauperis petitions” (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).