Hanners v. Pender Mill I Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the general rule in civil cases ... [is] that ‘indigent persons have no constitutional right to proceed in forma pauperis’ ” (quoting M.L.B. v. S.L.J.,519 U.S. 102, 113 (1996))
• concluding that the district court \did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carolina's complaint without granting leave to amend Carolina's complaint\ because the complaint \did not present the possibility of [him] stating a valid imminent-danger claim\
• finding that of Section 1915(g) does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause
• affirming dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based on plaintiff’s three strikes and upholding the constitutionality of § 1915(g)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).