Andrews v. Cervantes

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[p]risoners who have 5 repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP status under the three 6 strikes rule”
• holding that “it is the circumstances at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters 16 for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception under § 1915(g).”
• holding that availability of imminent-danger exception “turns on the conditions a 10 prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time”
• holding that availability of imminent-danger exception “turns on the conditions a 7 prisoner faced at the time the complaint was filed, not at some earlier or later time”
• holding that “it is the circumstances 6 at the time of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ 7 exception under § 1915(g).”
• holding that “the exception applies if the 2 complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of serious 3 physical injury’ at the time of filing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).