Legal Opinion
Hairston v. Gronolsky
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 15, 2009No. 08-3995PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
Arthur Hairston, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and administratively terminating his civil action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review *717the District Court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See Redmond v. Gill, 352 F.3d 801, 803 (3d Cir.2003). We will affirm.
On March 17, 2008, Hairston filed a complaint (which, we note, is properly considered as one brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct.…
3Cases cited4 opinions
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- David Newlin v. David W. Helman, Jesse E. Robinson v. B. Smith, James C. Griffin v. William R. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Redmond v. GillCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Joseph N. Hall v. Dennis StoneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
4Cited by1 opinion
- El Ameen Bey v. StumpfDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2011