U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 123— FEES AND COSTS

28 U.S.C. § 1932

Revocation of earned release credit

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
In any civil action brought by an adult convicted of a crime and confined in a Federal correctional facility, the court may order the revocation of such earned good time credit under section 3624(b) of title 18, United States Code, that has not yet vested, if, on its own motion or the motion of any party, the court finds that—(1) the claim was filed for a malicious purpose;(2) the claim was filed solely to harass the party against which it was filed; or(3) the claimant testifies falsely or otherwise knowingly presents false evidence or information to the court.(Added Pub. L. 104–134, title I, § 101[(a)] [title VIII, § 809(a)], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–76; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104–140, § 1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: Samuel H. Myles v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Samuel H. Myles v. United States (2005) ca7 “28 U.S.C. § 1932 . The body of Myles’s complaint mentioned the Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons and other administrative officials who could not conceivably be held liable under the Farmer standard for in-tra-prison violence.”
Wade v. State (2002) sc · cites it 2× “1321-76, § 809(a)(codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1932 ) with S.C.Code Ann. § 24-27-200 (both dealing with revocation of inmate credits).”
Dawes v. Walker (2001) ca2 “Other provisions of the Prison Litigation Act of 1996 can be thought to have marginally increased the opportunity costs to prisoners in filing frivolous suits. For example, a federal prisoner’s good time credits may be revoked for filing a claim the court determines to be…”
Nat'l Veterans Legal Servs. Program v. United States (2018) cadc “3854 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1932 ). At the same time, the Judicial Conference "addressed the issue of what types of data or information made available for electronic public access should have an associated fee and what types of data should be provided at no cost.”
Rice v. National Security Council (2001) scd · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 1932 (“second”). This recommendation also appears appropriate.”
Alexander S. v. Boyd (1997) ca4 · cites it 2× “In addition, § 809(a) of the PLRA (codified at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1932 (West Supp.1997)) specifically limits the revocation of earned release credit to “adult[s] convicted of a crime and confined in a Federal correctional facility” if the district court concludes that they filed a…”
District of Columbia v. Jerry M. (1998) dc “, PLRA § 809(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1932 (limiting revocation of earned release credit to adults convicted of a crime and confined in a federal correctional facility).”
Maghee v. IOWA DIST. COURT JUDGE, READE (2006) iowa “See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1932 (West Supp.2005) (loss of earned good time credit for inmates in federal correctional facilities for frivolous civil litigation); Lynn S.”
Burgos v. Craig (2008) ca2 “§ 3626 , 28 U.S.C. § 1932 , is also reviewed de novo.”
Thurman v. Gramley (1996) ca7 “, 28 U.S.C. § 1932 , which permits a court to revoke a plaintiffs good time credit at the conclusion of a suit it finds to be malicious or supported by fabricated evidence.”
Anderson v. Singletary (1997) ca11 “1997); section 807 provides that any compensatory damages a prisoner receives in connection with a civil action shall be paid directly to satisfy any outstanding restitution orders; section 808 provides that reasonable efforts shall be made to notify a prisoner’s victims prior…”
Rice v. Natl Security Cncl (2002) ca4 · cites it 2× “§ 1915A (2000), and revoked Rice’s unvested good time credits under 28 U.S.C. § 1932 (2000). 2 Rice does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his claims were frivolous, so that portion of the district court’s order is not properly before us.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.