Aikens v. Ingram
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1DissentKing, Circuit Judge
With sincere respect for my friends of the panel majority, I write separately in dissent. The bottom line of this dispute is *292that Frederick Aikens was right — and the district court was wrong — about whether the exhaustion of intraservice remedies was necessary before Aikens could pursue his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Although he was ultimately vindicated on the exhaustion issue, Colonel Aikens found himself in a predicament: Absent Rule 60(b) relief from the judgment of dismissal, his § 1983 claim was vulnerable to a statute of limitations defense. And this predicament was the direct result of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Chappell v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.