Skip to main content
E.D. Wisconsin· 1/13/1999

Luedtke v. Bertrand

Citations

  • 32 F. Supp. 2d 1074
  • 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336
  • 1999 WL 14243

How courts have described this case

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

  • “for purposes of §1915(g) and the federal lawsuits it was designed to curtail, the dismissal of a pendant state law claim without prejudice is a non-event and should not factor into the ‘strike’ analysis”
  • “for purposes of § 1915(g) and the federal lawsuits it was designed to curtail, the dismissal of a pendant state law claim without prejudice is a non-event and should not factor into the ‘strike’ analysis”
  • plaintiff’s “vague allegation of a conspiracy among the defendants to beat, assault, injure, harass and retaliate against him are … insufficient and lack the specificity necessary to show an imminent threat of serious physical injury”
  • “To allow a prisoner to get around [§ 1915(g

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Randa

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Luedtke v. Bertrand

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.