Wells v. Travelers Ins.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that prison physicians were not deliberately indifferent for failing to treat “multiple nose fractures of the right and left nasal bone, mildly displaced” and noting evidence “that such injuries ordinarily heal without medical intervention”
• concluding that “plaintiff did not properly exhaust 13 the administrative remedies available to him because he did not initiate the process by submitting an Inmate Request Form seeking informal resolution, and his Level 1 HSAR grievance was procedurally deficient”
• finding that the defendants’ alleged threats of retaliation did not interfere with the plaintiff’s exhaustion efforts because, following a threat, the plaintiff “thereafter submitted . . . [a] grievance in spite of this alleged threat”
• affirming district court’s dismissal based on inmate’s failure to exhaust, under Administrative Directive 9.6, his excessive force claim against correctional staff
• affirming district court's dismissal based on inmate's failure to exhaust his claim of correction officer's use of excessive force under Administrative Directive 9.6
• affirming district court’s dismissal based on inmate’s failure to exhaust claim of correctional officer’s use of excessive force under A.D. 9.6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).