Pro se inmate’s request to amend his complaint that he was framed with false testimony from an officer to get search warrant, corroborated by action by the state’s attorney, stated enough to get over the pleading hurdle of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Wooden v. Armenteros, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33817 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)*:But Wooden did not allege that a cocaine sale in fact occurred, even if he summarized Armenteros’s statements to that effect.

1983, claiming that the officers in so doing violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his claims against Weddle and Fogelman under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915A, on the ground that the complaint failed to allege facts that would amount to "deliberate indifference." It then granted summary judgment in Cooley's favor.

2. Whether, in such litigation, this fee provision applies to fees awarded after the Act's effective date for services rendered before that date.Other PerspectivesLaw Journal Extra-- without a doubt the best source of free legal news on the web has of note this weekArticles:Law Schools urged to defend capital casesCourthouse:THE DISTRICT COURT should use a de novo standard to review dismissals of prisoners' complaints under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsheld Nov. 20.Ruiz v. U.S., 97-20950. . . . .