Legal Opinion
Cotner v. Campbell
District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Decided September 20, 1985No. 85-497-C, 85-502-C, 85-507-C, 85-508-C, 85-514-C, 85-515-C, 85-525-C, 85-526-C and 85-577-CPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
SEAY, Chief Judge.
These cases are before the court on its own motion to be tested under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) to determine whether they are frivolous, malicious, or improper. Because these cases involve common questions of law, on its own motion the court orders that they should be consolidated, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Each and every plaintiff is an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. They instituted these actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983-88 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages for…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Hagans v. LavineSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cotner v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Gumpl v. SeiterDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1988
- Robert E. Cotner v. Denny Hopkins, William Beckman, James Dunham, Leroy Kirk, William McLeod Peggy Fries, Larry Meachum, John Doe, and Warden Gary Maynard, Robert E. Cotner v. Melvin Cambell, Bill Ward, Juanita Zummer, Gayle Norman, Gary Maynard and Larry MeachumCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986