Jump to content

foolish

Members
  • Content Count

    1,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About foolish

  • Rank
    Diamond Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

2,221 profile views
  1. foolish

    Case law

    As you know I am forced to juggle cases, (and this case is a proactive research that I foresee that the research will prove beneficial to my case) actually what meant by ''spot on'' is the sequence of events of how the district court treated the complaint, and I understand that from what I read of Sills, is that dismissals for frivolousness was the only option the courts had to dismiss complaint that have been granted IFP status. The similarity is that it relates to the same statute just a different (sub)paragraph and its treatment of the complaint and sequence of events is strikingly similar. But in my case I believe the merits are much stronger than Sills.
  2. foolish

    Case law

    The best I can say as to not get long winded is that Sills is spot on the significant issues of law.
  3. foolish

    Case law

    I spotted that as far as google scholar took me. Tried the statue no close analogous case.
  4. foolish

    Case law

    Appreciate the effort but that's the 'free' research engine (Google Scholar) that I regularly look at Cited by and How Cited, this case seems to be within the D.C. Circuit I have found no internal citations in the Circuit that I requested. Again appreciate it.
  5. foolish

    Case law

    Does anybody know a Ninth Circuit case citing Sills v. Bureau of Prisons, 761 F.2d 792 (D.C. Cir. 1985) or an analogous case identical to Sills I am stuck I tried everything within my knowledge and access, tired catch phrases, regulations involved words, follow internal citations. . , . none of it works for me, I am at an impasse, need In Sills, the Appellant filed a motion for summary reversal of the district courts sua sponte dismissal of complaint under 1915 (d) Sills sought access to military law research materials to assist him in his pursuit of post-conviction remedies. Upon receipt of the appellant's complaint, the district court granted the appellant leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and simultaneously dismissed the complaint sua sponte, under § 1915(d). See Id 761 F.2d at 793. The Circuit Court granted Sills motion for summary reversal because it was clear that the district court cursilory treated Sills meritorious claims". . . . Any productive lead would help.
  6. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Oh okay, thanks.
  7. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    I appreciate the patience iI understand its not only convoluted but t is vague but that's me holding my cards to my chest as best I can but believe its not close enough so bare with me. The issue is federal law under 42 U.S. Code Sect. 1985(3), attached to 1983 claims and others .
  8. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Thanks for the insight, I understand that the relevant issue is the deprivation of rights, what I was mauling over was the capacities which individuals are sued and the bars.
  9. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    Believe me I understand that specifics matter and I like always appreciate the patience and only turn here for some guidance to get a better grasp on the issue. Let me give a another example in civil suit claiming that both state and federal defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his federally protected rights but a sued in both their 'individual' and 'official' capacities in the federal court and the state actors claims that they are immune from suit but in my research only half might be true the half that might be true is that the state actors might be immune in their ''official'' capacities but not their ''individual'' capacities for violations of federally protected rights. The claim against the state would bar he conspiracy in the official capacity but the same defendants in their individual capacity, am I correct. Wouldn't the claims against state actors in their individuals remain intact?
  10. foolish

    Hypothetical question

    I can understand the immunity aspect of the defendants but that I still can't grasp or understand the part that the conspiracy claims failing aspect simply because certain defendants would be immune from suit (how is that if you loose the conspirator through immunity then the conspiracy is forgot despite the foot prints the conspirators left behind). what if there is not only a deprivation of privileges and rights but a continuum of deprivation of rights or privileges?
  11. I have a hypothetical question that hopefully someone can share a productive response. Here is the question can a defendant or defendants be dismissed in a suit for various reasons that formed part of claim without dismissing the claim itself against the other defendants for example in a conspiracy claim that deferent or defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff of rights or privileges, where some defendants claims are dismissed due to for example immunity claims that they are immune from suit for whatever reason. Does immunity claims as to the immune defendant or defendants 'clean the entire slate' on the other defendant from the conspiracy claims when there was actual conspiracy and evidence of rights and privileges that were violated that otherwise would not have occurred had the defendant not conspired against the plaintiff? In other words would the conspiracy claims against the defendants survive despite dismissal of the immune conspirators
  12. I need to know what regulation governs a procedure in filing motions and responding on appeal in the Circuit Courts. Does Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 27 or does the Circuit Rule 27 govern the timeliness of response and what it may contain?
  13. foolish

    Process

    I understand the frustration about not giving more information but I continue to be forced to represent myself and am extremely cautious about not giving too much away that might prejudice me on my on going case. Answering your question yes it does matter, I needed to know in an attorney's experience does the swiftness or slowness matters. Generally speaking of course.
  14. foolish

    Process

    How long does it take in a federal case (where the litigant is pro se and moving IFP from) a court receiving a suit that review the motion for ifp, assigning case a docket number and addressing the issues, or possibly referring case to a magistrate?
×