Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mitchell v. Farcass

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided May 6, 1997No. 96-3026PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1ConcurrenceLay, Senior Circuit Judge

I am pleased to concur in Chief Judge Hatchett’s excellent opinion holding (1) that the filing fee provisions of the PLRA do not violate a prisoner's equal protection rights, and (2) that the procedural mechanism for dismissal of in forma pauperis (IFP) suits found in § 1915(e)(2) may be applied retroactively. I write separately, however, to note my concern as to the constitutionality of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which allows sua sponte dismissal of an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This case comes to us in an unusual posture. On June 18, 1996, the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Coppedge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Hagans v. LavineSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Angie Novy v. David L. CaplanDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2026
  2. Michel Torres v. Centurion of Florida, LLC, etc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2026
  3. Ronald Pak Zern v. DMD Jeffrey P. Miles, Centurion Medical Provider, Gerber, Chaplain Stasney, and Chaplain MosleyDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API