Stanley L. Boswell v. Robert Mayer and Melinda Cieslinski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that inmate who does not explain how 4 defendants impaired access to the courts or describe contents of the letter did not show actual injury
• concluding that a pro se plaintiff failed to state an access-to- -4- Case No. 21-5540, Williams v. Hall courts claim because his complaint “never mentions the contents of the letter” at issue
• stating that “[p]ro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings”
• “Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.”
• “Unlike mail from the ACLU, courts, defense attorneys, and so forth, mail from Prosecuting Attorneys and the Attorney General will almost always consist of documents in the public record.”
• pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).