§Why CasetextPricing

Ashker et al v. Brown et al

REPLY

13 Cited authorities

  1. Jones v. Bock

    549 U.S. 199 (2007)   Cited 12,764 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court

  2. Harris v. Nelson

    394 U.S. 286 (1969)   Cited 1,585 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 regarding interrogatories is not applicable to habeas cases

  3. United States v. New York Telephone Co.

    434 U.S. 159 (1977)   Cited 891 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 41 broad enough to authorize installation and use of pen registers

  4. Price v. Johnston

    334 U.S. 266 (1948)   Cited 1,349 times
    Holding that statutory authorization of writs "necessary" for the exercise of jurisdiction does not require that use of the writ be essential, but only that it be reasonably necessary in the interest of justice

  5. Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc.

    376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 596 times
    Holding that to demonstrate their entitlement to injunctive relief the plaintiffs must sufficiently allege, among other things, "a substantial likelihood of success on the merits" and that "irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues"

  6. Gomez v. Vernon

    255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 632 times
    Holding that "repeated threats of transfer because of [the plaintiff's] complaints about the administration of the [prison] library" were sufficient to ground a retaliation claim

  7. Plata v. Schwarzenegger

    603 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 52 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Concluding the District Court did not err in finding that the receivership was the least intrusive means of remedying CDCR's constitutional violation

  8. IN RE DAW

    Case No. 09-00690-TLM, Case No. 09-03594-TLM, Case No. 10-00718-TLM, Case No. 10-00720-TLM, Case No. 10-01516-TLM, Case No. 10-01583-TLM, Case No. 10-01774-TLM, Case No. 10-01779-TLM, Case No. 10-01942-TLM, Case No. 10-02140-TLM, Case No. 10-02357-TLM, Case No. 10-02422-TLM, Case No. 10-02591-TLM, Case No. 10-02623-TLM, Case No. 10-02630-TLM, Case No. 10-02823-TLM, Case No. 10-02910-TLM, Case No. 10-02952-TLM, Case No. 10-02955-TLM, Case No. 10-02956-TLM (Bankr. D. Idaho Jan. 24, 2011)   Cited 10 times

    Case No. 09-00690-TLM, Case No. 09-03594-TLM, Case No. 10-00718-TLM, Case No. 10-00720-TLM, Case No. 10-01516-TLM, Case No. 10-01583-TLM, Case No. 10-01774-TLM, Case No. 10-01779-TLM, Case No. 10-01942-TLM, Case No. 10-02140-TLM, Case No. 10-02357-TLM, Case No. 10-02422-TLM, Case No. 10-02591-TLM, Case No. 10-02623-TLM, Case No. 10-02630-TLM, Case No. 10-02823-TLM, Case No. 10-02910-TLM, Case No. 10-02952-TLM, Case No. 10-02955-TLM, Case No. 10-02956-TLM. January 24, 2011 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE:

  9. Horacek v. Caruso

    Case No. 1:08-cv-262 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2008)   Cited 8 times
    Denying class certification because, even if Plaintiffs could show numerosity, typicality, and commonality, they could not demonstrate adequacy

  10. Frazier v. Redding Police Dept

    No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    No. CIV S-11-1351 GGH P 02-15-2012 MATTHEW LUCAS FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. REDDING POLICE DEPT., et al., Defendants. Gregory G. Hollows ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The gravamen of plaintiff's second amended complaint is a claim of excessive force by defendants Redding Police Dept. and Officers Rhoads and Zufall. Plaintiff has filed a "motion for Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)" in which he seeks access to writing materials

  11. Section 1997 - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 1997   Cited 2,447 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring exhaustion of "such administrative remedies as are available"