Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aikens v. Ingram

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided July 6, 2010No. 08-2278Published

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

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Gonzalez v. CrosbySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. Chappell v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API