Robert Foulk v. Ronald Charrier, Lieutenant Charrier Individually and in His Official Capacity, United States of America, Intervenor Below-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the law was clearly established that correctional officers do not have a blank check to use force whenever a prisoner is being difficult”
• holding that district court correctly allowed excessive force claim to go to trial where correctional officer pepper sprayed a securely confined inmate in the face
• holding that the “district court did not err in declining to dismiss [plaintiff’s] excessive force claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies” because the prison did not respond to his complaint and thus no further administrative proceedings were “available”
• holding that an inmate was not required to file a grievance in order to exhaust administrative remedies when the prison failed to respond to an informal review request that was a prerequisite to his ability to file a grievance
• holding that an inmate was not required to file a grievance in order to exhaust his administrative remedies when the prison failed to respond to an informal review request, which was a prerequisite to the inmate’s ability to file a grievance
• noting that exhaustion requirement applies to amended complaints filed after PLRA’s passage unless complaint relates back to earlier filing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).