Legal Opinion

Sindram v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided August 31, 2005No. 04-1654CPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BRADEN, Judge.

Plaintiff is an experienced litigant. To date, however, Plaintiff has been sanctioned or enjoined from filing pro se actions in the United States Supreme Court,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,2 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,3 the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,4 and courts in the State of Maryland.5 Nevertheless, the United States Court of Federal Claims has exercised its discretion to afford Plaintiff with the same traditional privileges afforded a pro se…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Moore v. Public Defenders OfficeUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  2. Shalhoub v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  3. Hufford v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  4. Moore v. Durango JailUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  5. O. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006

10 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