From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Feb 19, 2002
534 U.S. 1136 (2002)

Summary

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are “consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners,” and that allowing prisoners to “split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement” (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

FEBRUARY 19, 2002


No. 01-6753. SMITH v. JONES, WARDEN, ET AL. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 256 F.3d 1135.

No. 01-6780. LAMBERT v. INDIANA. Sup.Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 743 N.E.2d 719.

No. 01-6939. HALL v. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. Sup.Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 792 So.2d 447.

No. 01-7009. ANDERSON v. CALIFORNIA. Sup.Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 25 Cal.4th 543, 22 P.3d 347.

No. 01-7076. HAGAN v. COGGINS ET AL. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 264 F.3d 1142.

No. 01-7077. TAITT v. WHITECO INDUSTRIES. Sup.Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 So.2d 1102.

No. 01-7085. ADU-BENIAKO v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER. C.A.2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 8 Fed. Appx. 43.

No. 01-7090. DAILY v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 253 F.3d 1194.

No. 01-7093. HUBBARD v. HOPPER, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 262 F.3d 1194.

No. 01-7094. ISREAL v. AYERS, WARDEN. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 13 Fed. Appx. 496.

No. 01-7097. COLLINS v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD OF PENNSYLVANIA. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

No. 01-7098. GIBBS v. GRIMMETTE ET AL. C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 254 F.3d 545.

No. 01-7099. MURPHY v. THOMPSON, SUPERINTENDENT, OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY. C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 15 Fed. Appx. 417.

No. 01-7101. BROWN v. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.


Summaries of

Certiorari Denied

U.S.
Feb 19, 2002
534 U.S. 1136 (2002)

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are “consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners,” and that allowing prisoners to “split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement” (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Pinson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are “consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners,” and that allowing prisoners to “split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement” (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Brown v. Annucci

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement" (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Cross v. Dep't of Corr.

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement" (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Correa v. Ginty

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement" (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from In re Truell

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement" (quoting Ashford v. Spitzer, No. 08-CV-1036 (LEK) (RFT), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147041, at *13 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2010))

Summary of this case from Azor-El v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr.

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement"

Summary of this case from Hunter v. Vance

noting that Hubbard, Hagan, and Boriboune are "consistent with the Second Circuit's recognition that the PLRA was intended to deter the filing of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners," and that allowing prisoners to "split the cost of one filing fee between them would undermine the deterrent effect of the PLRA filing fee requirement"

Summary of this case from Arrotta v. Schiff

observing that "[i]t might be difficult to fit within th[e] definition [for cause to overcome a procedural default] a subsequently overruled circuit decision that did not actually 'impede' the effort to comply with any state court rule, but instead removed an incentive for compliance by indicating (erroneously) that a particular action was not necessary for federal habeas review purposes," and holding that reliance on circuit precedent is neither cause to excuse a procedural default nor cause for failing to comply with the subsequently determined need to seek discretionary review to fully exhaust available state court remedies

Summary of this case from United States v. Hawkins
Case details for

Certiorari Denied

Case Details

Full title:CERTIORARI DENIED

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

Citations

534 U.S. 1136 (2002)

Citing Cases

Lillie v. Thomas

The Fifth Circuit has recognized that there is no significant distinction between pretrial detainees and…

Lane v. Harris County Jail Medical Department

The Fifth Circuit has recognized that there is no significant distinction between pretrial detainees and…