Martinez v. Griffin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. “These claims do not state any grounds for relief under § 1983. As stated in Martinez v. Griffin, 840 F.2d 314 (5th Cir.1988): “This case is one of an increasing number of examples of attempts by prisoners to use the courts as a general grievance procedure to complain about whatever matters having to do with their incarceration they do not like. The courts are not the administrators of the prisons. The courts are not the general administrative grievance procedures set up to hear prisoner complaints. The jurisdiction of the federal courts basically is limited in the case of the treatment of state prisoners to violations of the United States Constitution and civil rights acts in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . “It is not for the federal courts to second-guess what is obviously careful diagnosis and adequate medical treatment just because a prisoner finds something to be unhappy about Then having failed on that claim, this prisoner undertook to throw in other claims about mistreatment which have nothing to do with this particular case. The entire case is frivolous and has wasted the time of the district court and this Court____” ( 840 F.2d at 314-15 ) (emphasis added). 13 If the plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, he has not even suggested that the alleged delay in medical treatment was done “for a punitive intent.” See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir.1987). If he has already been convicted, the plaintiff does not even allege facts showing a “deliberate indifference”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Humphrey v. Bowles