Nunez v. Goord

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff's \stand alone and unsupported\ allegations that his grievances were either lost or destroyed did not defeat the defendants' entitlement to summary judgment
• holding PLRA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to state-law claims
• “As Nunez’s cause of action alleging negligence does not invoke § 1983, or any other federal law, it is not subject to § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.”
• “As Nunez’s cause of action alleging negligence does not invoke § 1983, or any other federal law, it is not subject to § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.”
• “As [the plaintiff's] cause of action alleging negligence does not invoke § 1983, or any other federal law, it is not subject to § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.”
• “As [the plaintiff’s] cause of action alleging negligence does not invoke § 1983, or any other federal law, it is not subject to § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).