Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cardinal v. Metrish

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided April 24, 2009No. 08-1562Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClay, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority’s holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery and that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Cardinal’s § 1983 claims. I also agree that Cardinal’s claims for declaratory or injunctive relief are moot because Cardinal has been transferred to a different facility which provides kosher meals, and because the Michigan Department of Corrections has changed its policy to preclude transferring participants in the kosher meal program to facilities that have no such program. I write separately, however, because I do not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stanley L. Boswell v. Robert Mayer and Melinda CieslinskiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
  2. Smith v. AllenCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
  3. Madison v. VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2006
  4. Price v. CarusoDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API