Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 407 F.3d 801 - Bey v. Johnson

Bey v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

407 F.3d 801 · 2005

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2012
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Heck v. Humphrey · Preiser v. Rodriguez

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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We adopt the total exhaustion rule, in large part, because the plain language of the statute dictates such a result. Section 1997e(a) states that no ‘action’ shall be brought in federal court until administrative remedies have been exhausted. However, in subsection (c), the statute allows district courts to dismiss frivolous ‘actions’ or ‘claims.’ 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(l) & (2). Congress’s use of the word ‘claims’ in subsection (c)(2) indicates that ‘claims’ are individual allegations and ‘actions’ are entire lawsuits.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prisoners’ actions may present questions as to whether one or more claims have been exhausted that are not only genuine, but difficult for courts to decide. In any such action, the district court must first familiarize itself with the case and hear the positions of the parties in order to decide the exhaustion issue as a preliminary matter. It hardly seems to aid efficiency to require that, if the court decides the claim-exhaustion issue against the prisoner, it must then dismiss any remaining exhausted claims only to allow the same case, absent the unexhausted claims, to be reinstituted, heard again on the exhausted issues, and then decided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.