Owens v.Keeling’s Empirical Analysis
461 F.3d 763 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1914 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Haines v. Kerner · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Hill v. McDonough
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(4) Notice of District Court’s Denial. The district clerk must immediately notify the parties and the court of appeals when the district court does any of the following: (A) denies a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis; (B) certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith; or (C) finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pau-peris. (5) Motion in the Court of Appeals. A party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the court of appeals within 30 days after service of the notice prescribed in Rule 24(a)(4). The motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district court’s statement of reasons for its action. If no affidavit was filed in the district court, the party must include the affidavit prescribed by Rule 24(a)(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. O'Neal v. Price“routine dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not count as a strike”). 6 . Faced with such a case, this Court could conceivably hold that § 1915(g) should not bar suit where a prisoner’s new action only reasserts claims previously dismissed without prejudice; in such a situation, the prior dismissal in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice for failure to exhaust should perhaps not be counted as a strike. This Court has intimated such an approach in holding that "when a prisoner 'refiles’ a complaint raising the same prison-conditions claims as a complaint that was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust under the PLRA, the prisoner need not pay an additional filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pointer v. Wilkinson“concluded that pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, which provides that “[a]ll laws in conflict with [the federal] rules [of procedure] shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect,” 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b), the amended Rule 24 trumped the conflicting provision in § 1915(a)(3).... [The Sixth Circuit thus] held that the party could file, within thirty days of service of the district court’s order denying IFP status on appeal, a motion with this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal in accordance with the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(5).”
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.