Peterson v. Wrenn

3 Citing cases

  1. Konias v. State Dep't of Corrs.

    2:19-CV-01530-CRE (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2021)

    There appears to be a division as to whether shy bladder syndrome constitutes a disability under the ADA amendments. See Carey v. Arizona Dep't of Corr., No. CV09-8020PCT-DGC DKD, 2010 WL 148211, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 12, 2010) (without analyzing the issue of disability under the ADA, finding that “liberally construed, ” the plaintiff, who alleged a disability of paruresis, had “stated a claim under the ADA” in his amended complaint); Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-CV-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *5 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017) (refusing to apply caselaw decided pre-ADAAA law to determine whether shy bladder syndrome is a disability under the ADA); see also Crowell v. Beeler, No. 114CV01724AWIBAM, 2017 WL 1198579, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (calling into question whether shy bladder syndrome constitutes a disability under the ADA amendments).

  2. Stow v. McGrath

    2021 DNH 62 (D.N.H. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "The failure to exhaust available grievance remedies is an affirmative defense as to which the defendants bear the burden of proof." Czekalski v. Hanks, No. 18-cv-592-PB, 2020 WL 7231358, at *12, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231179, at *35 (D.N.H. Dec. 8, 2020); see also Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-cv-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *10, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12225, at *31 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017). To prevail at the summary judgment stage, the defendants "must show that no reasonable [factfinder] could find that [the plaintiff] properly exhausted the administrative remedies available to him before commencing [the] action."

  3. Yahtues v. Dionne

    2020 DNH 50 (D.N.H. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    To show that this right has been violated, the detainee must identify a policy or practice that denied him meaningful access to the courts and show that the policy or practice actually injured his ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Holloman, 244 F. Supp. 3d at 230; Peterson v. Wrenn, No. 14-CV-432-LM, 2017 WL 401189, at *7 (D.N.H. Jan. 30, 2017) (citing Casey, 518 U.S. at 352, 354-55). Importantly, "[t]he Constitution requires only that prisoners 'be able to present their grievances to the courts,' not that they be able to conduct generalized research.