31 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,090 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Jones v. Bock
549 U.S. 199 (2007) Cited 12,795 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (1991) Cited 9,210 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"
Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.
370 U.S. 626 (1962) Cited 23,601 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte
Watison v. Carter
668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 4,341 times
Holding that allegations of placement in segregation on false disciplinary charge can give rise to a cognizable First Amendment claim
Rhodes v. Robinson
380 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 5,089 times
Holding that for a retaliation claim to be viable, a prisoner must allege, inter alia, that a state actor took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct
Brodheim v. Cry
584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 2,649 times
Holding that a "mere threat of harm can be an adverse action" if issued in retaliation for a prisoner's use of grievance procedures
Silva v. Vittorio
658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 2,192 times
Holding “prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences of the conditions of their confinement without active interference by prison officials.”
Pratt v. Rowland
65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,562 times
Holding that “timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent” in prisoner retaliation cases
Bruce v. Ylst
351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,355 times
Holding that SHU confinement that manifests an "administrative strategy designed to preserve order in the prison and protect the safety of all inmates" need only be supported by "some evidence," and noting that "the assignment of inmates within the California prisons is essentially a matter of administrative discretion"
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,421 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 1651 - Writs
28 U.S.C. § 1651 Cited 11,023 times 60 Legal Analyses
Granting us the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"

Ashker et al v. Brown et al

31 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court

Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

Holding that allegations of placement in segregation on false disciplinary charge can give rise to a cognizable First Amendment claim

Holding that for a retaliation claim to be viable, a prisoner must allege, inter alia, that a state actor took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct

Holding that a "mere threat of harm can be an adverse action" if issued in retaliation for a prisoner's use of grievance procedures

Holding “prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims challenging their sentences of the conditions of their confinement without active interference by prison officials.”

Holding that “timing can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent” in prisoner retaliation cases

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Granting us the power to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] . . . jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"