Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided March 11, 2002No. 01-5813PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

Jeffrey H. Reynolds, III, appeals pro se from a district court order that denied his motion for pauper status in a civil rights action that he had filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). His appeal has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed in this case. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Reynolds moved for leave to file his civil rights complaint in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Flippin v. CoburnCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  2. Flippin v. MasseyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  3. Anthony Jones v. Securitas Technology Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2026
  4. Bailey v. Mahoning County Prosecutors OfficeDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2025
  5. Cora Franklin v. Cleveland Clinic Lutheran HospitalDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2026

11 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