Johnston v. Genesee County Sheriff Maha (2012)
green
· 40 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 29 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Mark Cowart v. Erwin (2016)
In response to his protests, Cowart 2See, e.g., King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 895 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that a county jail’s administrative remedies became unavailable after an inmate was transferred beyond the county jail’s jurisdiction); Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (same); Rodriguez v. Westchester Cty.
same
green
Mark Cowart v. Erwin (2016)
See, e.g., King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 895 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that a county jail’s administrative remedies became unavailable after an inmate was transferred beyond the county jail’s, jurisdiction); Johnston v. Maha, 460 Fed.Appx. 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (same); Rodriguez v. Westchester Cty.
same
green
Wright v. Martin (2025)
See Garcia v. Heath, 74 F.4th 44, 49 (2d Cir. 2023); Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”).
summary order
green
Baltas v. Maiga (2024)
The District Court, having dismissed the federal claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims. 28 use,” Williams v. Priatno, 829 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted), and impermissibly requires inmates to “reach across jurisdictional lines to take advantage of grievance systems that are no longer available to them,” Appellant’s Br. 52 (quoting Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order)).
summary order
green
Toliver v. City of New York (2013)
Moreover, Toliver should be given an opportunity to develop his arguments that the more serious ongoing deprivations and assaults he allegedly suffered throughout his time at Rikers Island, viewed as a whole, violated the Constitution, see Johnston v. Maha, 460 Fed.Appx. 11, 14 (2d Cir.2012) (summary order) (remanding for consideration of pretrial detainee’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment where district court had erroneously construed claim under the Eighth Amendment)…
green
Holland v. City of New York (2016)
See Johnston, 460 Fed.Appx. at 14 (“The District Court erred in applying Sandin ... [to] a pretrial detainee.”); Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 163 (2d Cir.2007) ("Sandin does not apply to pretrial detainees.”), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
“The District Court erred in applying Sandin ... [to] a pretrial detainee.”
green
Jan Gawlik v. Strom, et al (2026)
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007), and “defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment,” Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
green
Brown v. Quiro (2024)
Conn. Aug. 4, 2022) (citing Johnson v. Mata, 460 F. App'x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012), and Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007)) (cleaned up).
green
Nau v. Papoosha (2023)
ECF No. 141-1 at 11. 11 of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment,” Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
green
Smith v. Perez (2023)
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217 (2007), and a defendant bears the burden of proving that an inmate did not exhaust his or her remedies prior to filing the action in court, Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”).5 A claim is not exhausted unless the 5Alth…
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Schebell v. Erfe (2022)
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 217 (2007), and a defendant bears the burden of proving that an inmate did not exhaust his or her remedies prior to filing the action in court, Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”).9 Section 1997e(a) applies to all claims re…
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Quigley v. Williams (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Olivencia v. Pun (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Mustafa v. Stanley (2022)
Officer Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 , 124–26 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that the administrative procedures were “prohibitively opaque” in part because the procedures “d[id] not provide guidance on how a transferred inmate can appeal his grievance with the original facility without having received a response”); see also Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The PLRA does not require prisoners to reach across jurisdictional lines to take advantage of grievance systems …
“The PLRA does not require prisoners to reach across jurisdictional lines to take advantage of grievance systems that are no longer available to them.”
green
Baltas v. Maiga (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Abernathy v. Commissioner of Correction (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”).
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Jordan v. Gifford (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Rooks v. Santiago (2022)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Jumpp v. Simonow (2021)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Otero v. Purdy (2021)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”).
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Lopez v. Semple (2021)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Durham v. Doe (2020)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Sandoz v. Doe (2020)
Cf. Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding that a form submitted by plaintiff showing the dates on which he had carried out each stage of the grievance process was sufficient to raise an issue of material fact as to whether he had exhausted his remedies.) I also note that Defendants were arguably put on notice of the incident when Plaintiff reported being attacked to a doctor, triggered an investigation by Defendants, and ultimately signed formal state…
finding that a form submitted by plaintiff showing the dates on which he had carried out each stage of the grievance process was sufficient to raise an issue of material fact as to whether he had exhausted his remedies.
green
Saidock v. McClain (2020)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Pierce v. Semple (2020)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to exhaustion that would preclude summary judgment.”
green
Carter v. Warden (2021)
See Johnson v. Mata, 460 Fed.
“The defendants have the burden of 2 Section 1997e(a
green
Williams v. Diaz (2020)
See Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Depending on the inmate’s explanation for the alleged failure to exhaust, the court must ask whether administrative remedies were in fact available to the prisoner.”); see also Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno, 829 F.3d 118 , 123–24 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Johnston v. Maha, 460 F. App’x 11, 15 (2d Cir. 2012) (referring to the “unavailability defense to nonexhaustion”).
referring to the “unavailability defense to nonexhaustion”
green
Best v. New York City Department of Correction (2014)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Johnston v. Maha, 460 Fed.Appx. 11, 14 (2d Cir.2012) (“The District Court erred in applying Sandin ... to [the plaintiff], who ... was a pretrial detainee.”); Dorlette v. Butkiewicus, No. 11-CV-1461, 2013 WL 4760943 , at *12 n. 16 (D.Conn.
green
Johnston v. Maha (2012)
See 460 Fed.Appx. at 15 n. 3, 2012 WL 313571 , at *2 n. 3.