97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9497, 122 F.3d 27 (9th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9497, 122 F.3d 27 (9th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nelson v. Duncan (caed, 2025-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. Duncan
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Furthermore, “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential 26 elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 27 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted), and courts “are not 1 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). 2 II.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Jones v. Trate
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Young v. U.S., 465 F. App’x 597, 598 (9th 14 Cir. 2012) (memorandum) (district court did not abuse discretion for dismissing habeas petition 15 after petitioner did not timely pay the filing fee or provide an IFP application) (citing James v. 16 Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (explaining requirements for 17 timely filing by pro se prisoner of application) ); Culler v. Board of Prison Terms, 405 F. App’x 18 263, 264 (9th Cir. 2010) (memorandum) (same); Scott v. LaMarque, 27 F. App’x 858, 859 (9th 19 Cir. 2001) (memorandum) (affirming dismissal for petiti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brooks v. Tarsadia Hotels
S.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (applying mailbox rule to trust-account statements filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(a)(2)); Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1994) (mailbox rule applied to Rule 50(b) 26 motion); Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1993) (mailbox rule applied to discovery responses). 27 2 1 On June 11, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Tarsadia 2 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC and granted Playground’s motion to dismiss the 3 FAC with leave to amend.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregory Downs v. Xavier Becerra
9th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the Prison Litigation Reform Act “imposes specific filing requirements on prisoners seeking to file civil actions in forma pauperis” and that these include a submission of “a certified copy of their prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months . . . .”); James, 122 F.3d at 28 (“We conclude that the rule for timely filing applicable to pro se prisoners . . . applies to the filing of trust-account statements as required by § 1915(a)(2).”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Steven Thoreson v. Ahmed
9th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we affirm.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael McCollum v. State of Nevada
9th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy Young v. United States
9th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2); Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2000) (“[P]risoner-plaintiffs seeking to proceed in forma pauperis [must] submit a certified copy of their prisoner trust fund account statement for the previous six months.”); James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir.1997) (“[T]he rule for timely filing applicable to pro se prisoners ... applies to the filing of trust-account statements as required by § 1915(a)(2).”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jerryal Culler v. Board of Prison Terms
9th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (explaining requirements for timely filing by pro se prisoner of in forma pauperis petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas v. Noelle
9th Cir. · 2009 · confidence medium
Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (trust-account statements required to be filed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2)); Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1994) (Rule 50(b) DOUGLAS v. NOELLE 6733 motion); Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1993) (discovery responses); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 1990) (notice of appeal in non-habeas civil cases).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Edward Green v. N. Mestre
9th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
We review the district court's dismissal for an abuse of discretion, See James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm. 3 The district court warned Green in its original order that failure to timely comply with the provisions in the order would result in a dismissal.
cited Cited "see" Arzaga v. Snow
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Milton v. Alameida
9th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hood v. Galaza
S.D. Cal. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27 (9th Cir.1997) (applying Houston rule to the filing of trust account statements); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir.1995) (applying Houston rule to the service of a Rule 59(e) motion); Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.1994) (applying the Houston rule to the filing of a Rule 50(b) motion); Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 988-89 (9th Cir.1993) (applying the Houston rule to the service of discovery responses).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9497
27.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 25, 1997.
122 F.3d 27
Published

122 F.3d 27

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 97 Daily Journal
D.A.R. 9497

Curtis Ivan JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MADISON STREET JAIL; Jail Commander, Sgt. A3061; Howard,
Officer, A4500; Wade, Sgt., A831; Granados, Officer,
Officer Dipietro; Officer Layton; Joe Arpaio, Sheriff;
Madison St. Kitchen, Defendants-Appellees.
Curtis Ivan JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICH, CPO; Prichard, CPO; Deputy Warden Whitley; Engle
CSO 6821; CSO Gutierrez, 6811, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 96-16384, 96-16386.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 1997.[*]
Decided July 25, 1997.

Curtis Ivan James, Los Angeles, California, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-96-01062-RCB(SLV), CV-96-01172-RCB(SLV).

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Curtis Ivan James, an Arizona state prisoner at the time these actions were filed, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to timely provide a trust-account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,[1] and we reverse and remand.

2

In both appeals, the district court entered an order stating that James must file a trust-account statement in accordance with § 1915(a)(2) within thirty days to proceed in forma pauperis. James submitted the trust-account statement with a sworn statement that he had mailed the statement within the thirty-day period, but the district court received and filed it after the thirty-day period had run.

3

We conclude that the rule for timely filing applicable to pro se prisoners articulated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), applies to the filing of trust-account statements as required by § 1915(a)(2). See Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 986-88 (9th Cir.1993). Because James submitted a sworn statement that he timely complied with the deadline imposed by the district court, "the district court must either accept that allegation as correct or make a factual finding to the contrary upon a sufficient evidentiary showing by the opposing party." See id. at 988; see also Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir.1995). Because the district court failed to make such a factual finding, we vacate the district court's dismissal of these actions and remand for further proceedings. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir.1994).

4

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

1

Whether we construe the district court's dismissal as a dismissal for lack of prosecution, for failure to obey an order of the court, or of a complaint as frivolous, the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir.1992) (failure to obey an order of the court); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (frivolousness)