Selcuk Karamanoglu v. Catherine (Karamanoglu) Gourlaouen

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that dismissal without prejudice would be appropriate where the pro se plaintiff did not seek leave to amend
• “Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal as to Rubenstein and Goodin but modify it to reflect that it is without prejudice.”
• “[N]othing in 10 No. 16‐4234 Hudson indicates the Supreme Court intended to abrogate a prisoner’s expectation of privacy beyond his cell.”
• “Bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the assumption of truth’ and are insufficient to state a claim.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679)
• “Bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the assumption of truth’ and are insufficient to state a claim.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679)
• “Bare legal conclusions ‘are not entitled to the assumption of truth’ and are insufficient to state a claim.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).