Paul Louis Harrelson v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court has the power to “enjoin[] any future litigation on 1 In Case No. 1:20-cv-837, Plaintiff also sued the Knights of Columbus and AT&T (named as AT&T/SBC (FBI) Inc.
• holding that a district court has the power to “enjoin[] any future litigation on 1 In Case No. 1:20-cv-837, Plaintiff also sued the Knights of Columbus and AT&T (named as AT&T/SBC (FBI) Inc.
• holding that a district court has the power to “enjoin[] any future litigation on 1 In Case No. 1:20-cv-837, Plaintiff also sued the Knights of Columbus and AT&T (named as AT&T/SBC (FBI) Inc.
• affirming dismissal given the 22-month delay between last pleading filed and dismissal
• “In this case the last pleading. . . was filed ... 22 months before the dismissal. ... In light of the significant inactivity of the plaintiff, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint.”
• “In this case the last pleading . . . was filed ... 22 months before the dismissal. ... In light of the significant inactivity of the plaintiff, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).