Cannon v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.3d 714 · 2005
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Dole v. Chandler (2006), Turley v. Rednour (2013)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Houston v. Lack · V. C O Churner · Perez v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · Pozo v. McCaughtry · Ross v. County of Bernalillo
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court dismissed the [plaintiffs] claims ... because [the plaintiff] failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on those claims before filing his original complaint. The court correctly noted that a prisoner may not file a lawsuit before exhausting his administrative remedies, even if he exhausts those remedies while the litigation is pending. See [Perez v. Wisc. Dep’t of Corrs., 182 F.3d 532 , 535 (7th Cir. 1999) ]. As we have previously observed, this exhaustion requirement is designed to alert prison officials to perceived problems and to enable them to take corrective action without first incurring the hassle and expense of litigation. See [Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 , 524 (7th Cir. 2004) ]; Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 , 398 (7th Cir. 2004); McCoy v. Gilbert, 270 F.3d 503 , 510 (7th Cir. 2002). Permitting a prisoner to sue first and then ask the prison to address issues that are now the subject of pending litigation defeats the purpose of the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. But [the plaintiffs] 1998 grievance concerning the alleged attack at [the prison] gave prison officials precisely the type of opportunity to address his complaints that the PLRA contemplates. The sole objective of § 1997e(a) is to permit the prison’s administrative process to run its course before litigation begins. See Ford, 362 F.3d at 399 . [The plaintiffs] November 1998 grievance apprised prison officials of the alleged attack at [the prison], and he did not hale those defenda”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mattox v. Edelman“The sole objective of § 1997e(a) is to permit the prison's administrative process to run its course before litigation begins.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dole v. Chandler
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.