18 F. Supp. 2d 1360 - Moore v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the term “civil action with respect to prison conditions” means any civil proceedings arising under Federal law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison, but does not include habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 75 F. Supp. 2d 250 - Diezcabeza v. Lynch · 28 F. Supp. 2d 884 - Beeson v. Fishkill Correctional Facility

2. “(1) [s]ubject to the provisions of paragraph (2), in any action brought pursuant to [ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ] by an adult convicted of a crime confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, the court shall, if the court believes that such a requirement would be appropriate and in the interests of justice, continue such a case for a period of not to exceed 180 days in order to require exhaustion of such plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies as are available. (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies under paragraph (1) may not be required unless the Attorney General has certified or the court has determined that such administrative remedies are in substantial compliance with the minimum acceptable standards promulgated under subsection (b) of this section or are otherwise fair or effective.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - Smith v. Stubblefield · 50 F. Supp. 2d 544 - Langford v. Couch

3. “[t]he most natural reading of this language leads to the conclusion that Con gress was not asking courts to evaluate the sufficiency of the administrative remedies, but merely • intended to require prisoners to utilize the existing administrative remedies, whether the grievance procedure will produce the precise remedy that the prisoner seeks or some other remedy.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 79 F. Supp. 2d 31 - Feliciano v. Servicios Correccionales · 30 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - Smith v. Stubblefield