Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 83 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Childs v. Miller.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Childs v. Miller Anchor | green | “when a pro se litigant files complaints that are repetitive, duplicative of other filings, without merit, or frivolous, he abuses the district court process.” | 26 |
| 2 | Waseem Daker v. Timothy Ward | green | “a plaintiff's duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial process.” | 20 |
| 3 | In Re McDonald | green | “responsibility to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.” | 11 |
| 4 | United States v. Gomez-Rosario | green | “this includes the ability to enjoin a party-even a pro se party-from filing frivolous and vexatious motions.” | 10 |
| 5 | United States v. Dimitar Petlechkov | green | “filing restrictions are 'the proper method for handling the complaints of prolific litigators,' and a district court may impose one at its discretion.” | 10 |
| 6 | United States v. Gomez-Rosario | green | “enjoin a party-even a pro se party-from filing frivolous and vexatious motions” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.