On appeal, McCool argued the PLRA guidelines did not pertain to his case because he was not challenging prison conditions, and he was not pursuing his claim in forma pauperis. On July 29 2009, the appellate court filed its opinion, which was amended on October 28, 2009, affirming the district court’s dismissal on the grounds that that complaint did not state a cause of action. See: McCool v. PA. DOC, et al., PA. Commw. Ct., #l882-CD-2008, 984 A 2d. 565; 2009 PA. Commw.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
McCool v. PA. DOC
|Cite||PA. Commw. Ct., #l882-CD-2008, 984 A 2d. 565; 2009 PA. Commw.|
|Level||State Court of Appeals|