Little v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.3d 1245 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Jones v. Bock · Woodford v. Ngo · V. C O Churner · Jernigan v. Stuchell · RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ODOC has a four-step process for administrative exhaustion of prisoner claims. Initially, a prisoner must seek to resolve any complaint by informally raising the matter with an appropriate staff member. If the matter is not resolved informally, the prisoner must submit [a Request to Staff]. If the matter still remains unresolved, the prisoner may file a Grievance Report Form (“grievance”) with the reviewing authority, which is usually the prison’s warden. Finally, a prisoner may appeal the warden’s decision to the Administrative Reviewing Authority (“ARA”). The ruling of the [ARA] ... is final and [concludes] the internal administrative remedy available to the inmate....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue”). 2 . To the extent Gillings may have failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, he points out that "[w]here prison officials prevent, thwart, or hinder a prisoner’s efforts to avail himself of an administrative remedy, they render that remedy 'unavailable' and a court will excuse the prisoner’s failure to exhaust.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) It is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) It will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction; (3) The balance of equities tips in the party’s favor; and (4) The injunction would serve the public interest.”
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.