Robinson v. Clipse

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Rule 4(m)’s period within which a plaintiff must serve a defendant “is tolled . . . until the date on which in forma pauperis status is granted”
• holding that “the period of time before the district court authorized service . . . does not count . . . for purposes of determining the limitation period” regarding the relation back requirements
• concluding that delay attributable to screening doesn’t count against Rule 4(m)’s 120 days
• explaining that the amending party must satisfy the requirements set forth in both Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(i) and (ii)
• providing that the time limit to serve parties under Rule 4(m) is tolled during initial review
• stating that the limitations period for service under Rule 4 does not begin to run for in forma pauperis plaintiffs until the court authorizes service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).