34 Cited authorities

Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (1989) Cited 55,780 times
Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (1994) Cited 18,982 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,505 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist
475 U.S. 534 (1986) Cited 2,894 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a school board member sued in his official capacity was bound by the board’s litigation decisions and could not file his own notice of appeal
Lane v. Pena
518 U.S. 187 (1996) Cited 1,872 times
Holding that any waiver of "sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text" and "will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign"
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
503 U.S. 30 (1992) Cited 1,781 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"
Hagans v. Lavine
415 U.S. 528 (1974) Cited 3,248 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) when the complaint's allegations “are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly insubstantial, or no longer open to discussion”
United States v. Testan
424 U.S. 392 (1976) Cited 2,199 times
Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees
O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance
512 U.S. 79 (1994) Cited 890 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal statutory scheme detailing what claims could be made against the FDIC when it is acting as receiver necessarily excluded claims not mentioned in the statute
Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency
733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1984) Cited 3,828 times
Holding insufficient to support a § 1983 claim bare allegations of discrimination against African-Americans "unsupported by any facts as to how race entered into any decisions"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,885 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,205 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,038 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,368 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "
Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
28 U.S.C. § 2675 Cited 7,075 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement
Section 2401 - Time for commencing action against United States
28 U.S.C. § 2401 Cited 6,191 times 26 Legal Analyses
Establishing that an FTCA claim must be brought in writing to the relevant agency within two years after accrual of the claim
Section 2674 - Liability of United States
28 U.S.C. § 2674 Cited 4,426 times 2 Legal Analyses
Specifying scope of United States' liability

KERBEY v. FBI

34 Cited authorities

Holding that "an in forma pauperis pro se complaint may only be dismissed as frivolous ... when the petitioner cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable basis in law or in fact"

Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that a school board member sued in his official capacity was bound by the board’s litigation decisions and could not file his own notice of appeal

Holding that any waiver of "sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text" and "will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign"

Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"

Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees

Holding that federal statutory scheme detailing what claims could be made against the FDIC when it is acting as receiver necessarily excluded claims not mentioned in the statute

Holding insufficient to support a § 1983 claim bare allegations of discrimination against African-Americans "unsupported by any facts as to how race entered into any decisions"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

Establishing that an FTCA claim must be brought in writing to the relevant agency within two years after accrual of the claim

Specifying scope of United States' liability