Anne M. Pavilonis v. Edward J. King

How courts have described this case

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

• directing that district courts “should look to both the number and content of the [plaintiffs] filings as indicia of frivolousness and harassment”
• noting that \plaintiffs bent on reopening closed cases\ fit into \classic mold\ for injunctive relief
• explaining that “use of [prefiling injunction] against a pro se plaintiff should be approached with particular caution” and should “remain very much the exception to the general rule of free access to the courts”
• pleadings must be sufficiently plain and definite to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and to warrant a response
• upholding the imposition of similar filing restrictions against a litigant with a history of filing deficient and duplicative complaints
• Pre-filing restrictions against a pro se plaintiff “should be approached with particular caution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).