§Why CasetextPricing

Poblete v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

19 Cited authorities

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

    511 U.S. 375 (1994)   Cited 19,649 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

  2. Haines v. Kerner

    404 U.S. 519 (1972)   Cited 59,572 times
    Holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

  3. Mireles v. Waco

    502 U.S. 9 (1991)   Cited 7,397 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly

  4. Tooley v. Napolitano

    586 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009)   Cited 403 times
    Holding that the “particular combination of sloth, fanaticism, inanity and technical genius ... move these allegations into the realm of claims [that are] essentially fictitious”

  5. Akinseye v. District of Columbia

    339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003)   Cited 433 times
    Explaining post-judgment interest is appropriate on judgments entered by the court

  6. Scholastic Ent. v. Fox Entertainment Grp.

    336 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 356 times
    Holding that "[f]ederal courts have consistently dismissed complaints in copyright cases presenting only questions of contract law" for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

  7. Best v. Kelly

    39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994)   Cited 438 times
    Holding because “state prisoners have no cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [pursuant to Heck] . . . federal courts have no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, with respect to claims of unconstitutional deprivations of good time credits”

  8. Networkip, LLC v. Federal Communications Commission

    548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 177 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "arguments in favor of subject matter jurisdiction can be waived by inattention or deliberate choice"

  9. Brown v. D.C

    514 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008)   Cited 167 times
    Holding that a prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment violation by alleging that prison officers failed to transfer him for sixty days after a prison doctor diagnosed the prisoner with gallstones and ordered him to be transferred to a hospital for treatment

  10. Fox v. Strickland

    837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that a district court "must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion" and that the notice "should include an explanation that the failure to respond ... may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case"

  11. 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 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 160,289 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts

    28 U.S.C. § 1291   Cited 89,937 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

  14. Rule 58 - Entering Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 58   Cited 18,981 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that, after a jury verdict, the Court must enter judgment "in a separate document"

  15. Rule 81 - Applicability of the Rules in General; Removed Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 81   Cited 3,771 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to proceedings for habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the practice in those proceedings: is not specified in a federal statute, the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases; and (B) has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions."