United States v. Vega-Martinez

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that defendants have “no duty to make further inquiry” if 20 the first removal window is not triggered
• noting that a plaintiff cannot state a § 1985(3) claim 16 where they cannot state a § 1983 claim based on the same facts
• stating “a district court has discretion to stay a mixed 19 petition to allow a petitioner time to return to state court to present unexhausted claims”
• “We must reverse the award of sanctions when the . . . [moving] party 19 failed to comply with the safe harbor provisions, even when the underlying filing is frivolous.”
• discussion of two removal periods

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).