Legal Opinion

Patel v. Heidelberger

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided April 26, 2001No. 00-3916PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

In June 2000 Arvind Patel, an inmate at the Centraba Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the lawyer who represented his ex-wife in their divorce. The district court dismissed Patel’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim under § 1983 and because the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his state-law complaints regarding his divorce proceedings and his ex-wife’s lawyer.

A statutory provision incorporated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”) requires district judges to screen prisoner…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Fries v. HelsperCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
  4. Hershinow v. BonamarteCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. Merwyn Austin Gipson v. Stanley D. Rosenberg and James D. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Milgrom v. BursteinDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2005
  2. COPENY v. ENGLANDDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2024
  3. De La Rosa, Michael v. Jimenez, JanaDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2023
  4. Flowers v. Tower Pallet Company IncDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2024
  5. Gintner, Lori v. O'Neill, SuzanneDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2023

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API