McCaa v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.3d 1027 · 2018
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. · Pruitt v. Mote · Merritt v. Faulkner · McKeever v. Israel · Santiago v. Walls
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“resisted laying down categorical rules regarding recruitment of counsel in particular types of cases”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Price · McCaa v. Hamilton“The second step is itself grounded in a two-fold inquiry into both the difficulty of the plaintiff's claims and the plaintiff's competence to litigate those claims himself. The inquiries are necessarily intertwined; the difficulty of the case is considered against the plaintiff's litigation capabilities, and those capabilities are examined in light of the challenges specific to the case at hand. Ultimately, the question is not whether a lawyer would present the case more effectively than the pro se plaintiff; if that were the test, district judges would be required to request counsel for every indigent litigant. Rather, the question is whether the difficulty of the case-factually and legally-exceeds the particular plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself. Notably, this inquiry extends beyond the trial stage of the proceedings. The relevant concern is whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of difficulty. This includes all of the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCaa v. Hamilton · Riley v. Franke“competency may not have been entirely his own ... courts must 'specifically examine[ ]' a plaintiff's 'personal ability to litigate the case, versus the ability of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Walker v. Price
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.