Legal Opinion
Scott v. Gardner
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 31, 2003No. 02 Civ.8963(RWS)PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants Lieutenant G. Gardner (“Gardner”), Lieutenant Longobardo (“Longobardo”), Sergeant James Dunn (“Dunn”), Correction Officer D. Young (“Young”), Robert H. Kuhlman (“Kuhl-man”), Dr. Lee (“Lee”), Director Donald Selsky (“Selsky”) have moved under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint of pro se plaintiff Harold Scott (“Scott”), on the grounds that Scott has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, that Scott’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations, that the defendants have qualified immunity and that Scott has failed to state a claim…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Porter v. NussleSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Jose Ortiz v. D. McBride Sgt. & R.O. Mara, Counselor of Arthur Kill Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Lipton v. County of Orange, NYDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Ross v. County of BernalilloCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
- Colon v. AnnucciDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- Singh v. GoordDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.