28 U.S.C. § 8
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1996).
Bonin v. Calderon, 77 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1996). “We have jurisdiction over these timely appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §8 1291, 2253, and we affirm. I The lengthy procedural history of this case and the grisly facts underlying it are discussed in Bonin v.”
Champagne v. United States, 836 F. Supp. 684 (D.N.D. 1992). “The parents of Ricky Champagne, as the personal representatives of his estate, bring this medical malpractice/wrongful death action against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §8 2671 et seq., and 1346(b). The plaintiffs allege that…”
Sipe v. Fritz, 43 B.R. 984 (D. Ariz. 1984). “” 28 U.S.C. § 8 (1940); see also Pub.L. No.”
Singh v. Wolf (D. Ariz. 2021). “11 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Boyle’s comprehensive and well- 12 || reasoned R&R and agrees with its conclusions that the prohibitions on judicial review 13 || contained in 28 U.S.C. §8§ 1252(a)(2) and (e)(2), and further cemented in Thuraissigiam II, strip this…”
Singh v. Wolf (D. Ariz. 2021). “11 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Morrissey’s comprehensive and well- 12 || reasoned R&R and agrees with its conclusions that the prohibitions on judicial review 13 || contained in 28 U.S.C. §8§ 1252(a)(2) and (e)(2), and further cemented in Thuraissigiam II, 14]|…”
Crago 115357 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2023). “” 28 U.S.C. § 8 2244(b)(3)(A). If the petition has not been approved by the court of appeals, the district court 9 is “without jurisdiction to entertain it.”
Vilaychith Khouanmany v. Mark Gutierrez (C.D. Cal. 2021). “See 28 U.S.C. §8§ 82, 84. As such, 2 || venue is not proper as to Petitioner’s claims arising out of conduct that 3 ||occurred in the District of Arizona or Northern District.”
Butler v. Cnty. of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2023). “28 / / / 1 (2) DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to 2 the civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a properly supported motion to 3 || proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §8§ 1914(a) & 1915(a). 4 (3) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45)…”
Pieper v. The Roman Catholic Church (D. Neb. 2021). “This case is dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§8 1915(e) and 1915A. 2. Judgment shall be entered by separate document.”
Eggsware v. Doe (N.D.N.Y. 2022). “28 U.S.C.§8§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(), (41); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules.”
Edmonds v. United States (N.D. Tex. 2019). “(citing 28 U.S.C. §8 2244(b)(2), (3)(A), (3)(C), 2255(h)), Movant received permission to file a second or successive motion from the Fifth Circuit in 2016.”
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.