Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …because janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the attorney's fee limits of the prison litigation reform act did not apply. at p. 542 ⚠ not in text
30 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morales v. McCulloh (lamd, 2019-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Morales v. McCulloh
M.D. La. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we agree with the eighth and seventh circuits which have held that this act applies to only those suits filed by prisoners.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dennis Bargher v. Craig White
5th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
because janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the attorney's fee limits of the prison litigation reform act did not apply.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Dennis Bargher v. Craig White
5th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
because janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the attorney's fee limits of the prison litigation reform act did not apply.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lester v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
W.D. Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, the Court considers it. 3 See Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir.2002); Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th Cir.2006); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000); Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir.2005); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 , 979–80 (11th Cir.2000). 5 “inmate” is defined as “any person confined in ei…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Lesesne v. John Doe
D.C. Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Talamantes v. Leyva, 575 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2009); Cofield v. Bowser, 247 Fed.Appx. 413, 414 (4th Cir.2007); Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145 , *588 1150-51 (10th Cir.2005); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005); Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir.2002); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); see also Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 974-75 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (interpreting parallel language in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000) (interpreting § 1997e(d)); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zimmerman v. Schaeffer
M.D. Penn. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id.; see also Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Doe v. Washington Cty., 150 F.3d 920 , 924 (8th Cir.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mabry v. Freeman
E.D. Mich. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725, 727 (4th Cir.2006) (holding that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to a plaintiff who is not a prisoner as defined in the Act when the suit is filed); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005) (same); Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir.2005) (finding that a former inmate does not have to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement before bringing suit); Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir.2002) (same); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000) (same); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rose v. Saginaw County
E.D. Mich. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 314 (3rd Cir.2001); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir.2000); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2nd Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998); Doe v. McKee, 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivera-Quinones v. Rivera-Gonzalez
D.P.R. · 2005 · confidence medium
Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.1998); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 322-23 (7th Cir.1998). “[L]itigants... who file prison condition actions after release from confinement are no longer ‘prisoners’ for purposes of § 1997e(a) and, therefore, need not satisfy the exhaustion requirements of this provision.” Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2nd Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Franklin County
E.D. Ky. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 314 (3rd Cir.2001); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2000); Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir.2000); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2nd Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998); Doe v. McKee, 150 F.3d 920 , 924 (8th Cir.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simpson v. Gallant
D. Me. · 2002 · confidence medium
Other Circuit Courts of Appeal have reached similar conclusions in addressing former-prisoner status and the exhaustion requirement, see Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 210 (3d Cir.2002); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999), and other limitations placed on prisoner suits by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000) (attorney fee limitation of § 1997e(d)); Nerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998) (mental and emotional injury damages limitation of § 1997e(e)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahmed v. Dragovich
3rd Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Harris, 216 F.3d at 976 (determining PLRA physical injury requirement does not apply to former prisoners); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000) (determining PLRA fee limit does not apply to former prisoners), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); Doe, 150 F.3d at 924 (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ali Ahmed v. Dragovich
3rd Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Harris, 216 F.3d at 976 (determining PLRA physical injury requirement does not apply to former prisoners); Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000) (determining PLRA fee limit does not apply to former prisoners), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); Doe, 150 F.3d at 924 (same).
discussed Cited "see" Almond v. Tarver
E.D. Tex. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); accord Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1150-51 (10th Cir.2005); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005); Witzke v. Femal, 376 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir.2004); Cox v. Mayer, 332 F.3d 422, 424-25 (6th Cir.2003); Ahmed v. Drago vich, 297 F.3d 201 , 210 n. 10 (3d Cir.2002); Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.2002).
discussed Cited "see" Almond v. Tarver
E.D. Tex. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Janes v. Hernandez, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); accord Norton v. City of Marietta, 432 F.3d 1145, 1150-51 (10th Cir.2005); Nerness v. Johnson, 401 F.3d 874, 876 (8th Cir.2005); Witzke v. Femal, 376 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir.2004); Cox v. Mayer, 332 F.3d 422, 424-25 (6th Cir.2003); Ahmed v. Dragovich, *896 297 F.3d 201 , 210 n. 10 (3d Cir.2002); Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31 , 35 (1st Cir.2002).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Medina-Claudio v. Commonwealth of PR
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See , e.g. , Janes v. , 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied Greig v. Goord Kerr v. Pucket , 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 01-2153
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Janes v. Hernández, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998). 17 Medina-Claudio also points to Article III of the AOC's Regulations for the Handling of Grievances and Complaints Filed by Inmates, which provides, in part, that "[t]his regulation shall apply to the employees of the Correction Administration of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, to all the inmates in penal institutions administered by said Agency." Accordi…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Medina-Claudio v. Commonwealth of PR
1st Cir. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Janes v. Hernández, 215 F.3d 541, 543 (5th *35 Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1113 , 121 S.Ct. 858 , 148 L.Ed.2d 772 (2001); Greig v. Goord, 169 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir.1999); Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bobby Joe JANES, III, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard HERNANDEZ, Sheriff of Bastrop County, Texas; Et Al., Defendants, Bastrop County, Defendant-Appellant
99-50092, 99-50141.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 11, 2000.
215 F.3d 541
Bobby R. Taylor, Austin, TX, for Janes., Jesse Lynn Whittenton, Walker, Bright & Whittenton, Austin, TX, for Bastrop County.
Reavley, Smith, Garza.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

Bobby Joe Janes was injured by another inmate in the Bastrop County jail and has recovered judgment against the County on a jury verdict that found the unsafe condition of the jail to be due to the Sheriffs policy and deliberate indifference. The County complains on appeal of the lack of evidence that the County policymaker, the Sheriff, knew of the unsafe condition and also objects to the amount of the attorney fee award. We affirm.

COUNTY LIABILITY

Janes was arrested because of traffic offenses and was confined with more than eight other inmates, some of them felons who had histories of violence. Janes was threatened with death, awakened in his bunk as he was being bound, kicked in the head and had his face injured when smashed into the wall. Despite the continuous fighting and abuses within the large cell, and the admitted fact that the jail officers expected the prisoners to fight and abuse one another during the duty shifts, the Sheriff maintained a policy of confining together inmates of no propensity for violence with dangerous people. Whatever their history, no one was denied access to helpless inmates until the former demonstrated violent behavior in the jail. His conduct outside of the jail did not matter. The policy was to leave the inmate to self-defense unless an officer on an hourly round learned of abuse and obtained a superior’s consent to do more to protect the inmate.

Bastrop County argues that it was not proved that the policymaker knew the[*543] prisoners who injured Janes were a risk of harm to him. That is not necessary. Janes only needed to prove that the policymaker knew there was a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates under his policy or custom of housing all manner of inmates together. That policy created an unsafe jail and the substantial risk that inmates would be injured. Fights were the order of the jail, to which the Sheriff was necessarily deliberately indifferent. That proof satisfies the legal requirement for county liability. Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. 1

ATTORNEY FEE

The County argues that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e limited the attorney fee to less than the district court awarded. We agree with the Eighth and Seventh Circuits which have held that this Act applies to only those suits filed by prisoners. Doe v. Washington County; [2] Kerr v. Puckett. [3] Because Janes was not a prisoner when this complaint was filed, the fee limits of the Act did not apply.

AFFIRMED.

1

. 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir.1996).

2

. 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.1998).

3

. 138 F.3d 321, 322-23 (7th Cir.1998).