Jones v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no indication that the “PLRA was intended to cover habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255”
• holding that there is no indication that the “PLRA was intended to cover habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 or 2255”
• holding that dismissals of habeas petitions filed under § 2254 do not count as strikes under § 1915(g)
• holding that “a court cannot bar a prisoner from filing 4 Under Section 1915(g
• holding that habeas petitions are not considered civil actions for purposes of section 1915(g)
• holding that habeas petitions are not considered civil actions for purposes of section 1915(g)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Weslowski v. Zugibe
  S.D. New York· 2015-03-31· cited 57×
• Jones v. Cuomo
  Second Circuit· 2021-06-22· cited 11×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Lindh v. Murphy
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-23· cited 4,248×
• Andrews v. King
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-02-10· cited 1,281×
• Chavis v. Chappius
  Second Circuit· 2010-08-17· cited 1,149×
• Arthur X. Carson v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-06-16· cited 372×
• Edwardo Reyes v. John P. Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility
  Second Circuit· 1996-07-29· cited 175×
• Polanco v. Hopkins
  Second Circuit· 2007-12-06· cited 90×
• Roy Bruce Smith v. Ronald Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
  Fourth Circuit· 1997-04-24· cited 87×
• In Re Paul Nagy
  Second Circuit· 1996-07-16· cited 52×
• Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
  D.C. Circuit· 2009-11-20· cited 51×