green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.6 score
“the district court's dismissal pursuant to rule 12 (b)(6) following the spears hearing could not have been based on a credibility determination in favor of the defendants.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Paul Butts v. Marcus Martin
But see Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (holding that prisoner did not allege facts to show a substantial burden on his right to freely exercise religion when prison officials had failed to provide him with a pork-free meal on two separate occasions). 15 No. 15-41640 Butts alleged in his verified complaint that (1) a BOP policy allows prisoners to wear white or black yarmulkes; 9 (2) he was wearing a black yarmulke when Martinez told him that his headwear was not “BOP issued;” (3) Martinez refused to allow Butts to dine without removing his …
discussed
Cited "but see"
Paul Butts v. Marcus Martin
But see Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (holding that prisoner did not allege facts to show a substantial burden on his right to freely exercise religion when prison officials had failed to provide him with a pork-free meal on two separate occasions). 9 , Butts attached a copy of the policy in question to his opposition to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kitziger v. Gulfstream Services, Inc.
the district court's dismissal pursuant to rule 12 (b)(6) following the spears hearing could not have been based on a credibility determination in favor of the defendants.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Fouch v. Christina Pivot et al.
(2×)
Ky. June 18, 2010) (citing Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal of First Amendment claim based on plaintiff not getting a pork-free meal on two occasions); White v. Glantz, No. 92-5169, 1995 WL 581973, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1993) (finding that an “isolated occurrence of being given two meals with green beans and bacon” did not violate a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights); Colvin, 605 F.3d at 291 (finding defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for inadvertently giving inmate non…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gill v. Coyne
Ky. June 18, 2010) (citing Randall v. McLeod, No. 95–10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept.15, 1995) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal of First Amendment claim based on plaintiff not getting a pork-free meal on two occasions); White v. Glantz, No. 92– 5169, 1993 WL 53098, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb.25, 1993) (finding that an “isolated occurrence of being given two meals with green beans and bacon” did not violate a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nelson v. Hawkins
Ky. June 18, 2010); see Randall v. McLeod, No. 95–10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (affirming the district court’s dismissal based on plaintiff’s not getting a pork-free meal on two occasions); White v. Glantz, No. 92–5169, 1993 WL 53098, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1993) (finding an “isolated occurrence of being given two meals with green beans and bacon” did not violate a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights); Greenberg v. Hill, No. 2:07– CV–1076, 2009 WL 890521 , at *6 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Andrews-Byrd v. National Records & Archives Administration
See Carmona v. Branstuder, 68 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Rule 11 directs the court to impose sanctions against a litigant who signs frivolous or abusive pleadings, and may be imposed on pro se litigants.”); Kurkowski v. Volcker, 819 F.2d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1987) (noting that while “pro se complaints are read liberally,” they “still may be frivolous” under Rule 11); see also Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Taylor v. Caplan
See Carmona v. Branstuder, 68 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Rule 11 directs the court to impose sanctions against a litigant who signs frivolous or abusive pleadings, and may be imposed on pro se litigants.”); Kurkowski v. Volcker, 819 F.2d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1987) (noting that while “pro se complaints are read liberally,” they “still may be frivolous” under Rule 11).
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Bryant v. Meineke
See Carmona v. Branstuder, 68 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Rule 11 directs the court to impose sanctions against a litigant who signs frivolous or abusive pleadings, and may be imposed on pro se litigants.”); Kurkowski v. Volcker, 819 F.2d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1987) (noting that while “pro se complaints are read liberally,” they “still may be frivolous” under Rule 11).
discussed
Cited "see"
Goins v. O'Donnell
Ky. June 18, 2010); see Randall v. McLeod, No. 95–10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (affirming the district court’s dismissal based on plaintiff’s not getting a pork-free meal on two occasions); White v. Glantz, No. 92–5169, 1993 WL 53098, at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 1993) (finding an “isolated occurrence of being given two meals with green beans and bacon” did not violate a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights); Greenberg v. Hill, No. 2:07–CV–1076, 2009 WL 890521 , at *6 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hester v. Ituah
See Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 68 F.3d 470 , at *2–4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (affirming the dismissal of a prisoner’s free exercise claim as frivolous where the prisoner alleged the denial of “pork-free” meals on “two isolated incidents” during a prison lock down). 1 1 Unpublished cases decided before January 1996 are binding precedent. 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.3. 2 Case: 19-20175 Document: 00515734501 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2021 No. 19-20175 Hester argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions to amend his complaint because Ituah had already a…
discussed
Cited "see"
Joseph Morgan v. Mark Patterson
See Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 1995 WL 581973, at * 3-4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (unpublished). 1 Insisting that that Botello and other prison officials were part of a “wheel conspiracy,” Morgan argues that they acted in concert to harm and harass him based on his Jewish faith.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cullen 766186 v. Wall
See, e.g., Randall v. McLeod, No. 95-10106, 1995 WL 581973, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (where the plaintiff was denied two pork-free meals on two occasions, but not on the same day, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to allege that “prison officials . . . burdened his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs”); Manning v. Erdos, No. 1:22-cv-371, 2022 WL 10118036 , at *6 (S.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Randall
v.
McLeod
v.
McLeod
95-10106.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Sep 18, 1995.
Cited by 8 opinions | Unpublished
Citer courts: E.D. Louisiana (1)
Randall
v.
McLeod[*]
NO. 95-10106
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Sept 15, 1995
Appeal From: N.D.Tex., No. 2:92-CV-259
1
AFFIRMED.
*
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir.R. 34.2