Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
O'NEAL v. Price
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 14, 2008No. 06-15591Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThomas, Circuit Judge
I join the majority’s decision that we have jurisdiction to consider O’Neal’s appeal even though the district court certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Additionally, I join the majority’s decision that O’Neal v. Parriott, Civ. No. 99-8370 (C.D.Cal.), constituted a “strike” under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because that case was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the denial of an application to proceed in forma pau-peris constitutes a strike. Thus, I disagree that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Denton v. HernandezSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Harry Franklin v. Ms. Murphy and Hoyt CuppCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Lira v. HerreraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Jeffrey Taylor v. Delatoore, Deputy Huges, Deputy Unknown Duncan, Sgt. Rogers, Lt. Eriquez, Dr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Jason Billman v. Indiana Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.