Torrence v. Pelkey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the plaintiff had filed a second amended complaint after enactment of the PLRA but had filed prior complaints pre-PLRA, the plaintiff was not required to exhaust the claims added in the second amended complaint
• observing that the State of Connecticut Department of Correction is a state agency and that “‘[i]t is well- settled that a state agency is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983” (citing cases)
• dismissing claims against Connecticut Department of Correction because it “is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983”
• dismissing claims against Connecticut Department of Correction because it “is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).