Case Citator › McLean v. United States

McLean v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
566 F.3d 391
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
71 of 71
Citing cases (total)
320
Treatment dates
2020
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. McLean v. United States was overruled in part on its Prison Litigation Reform Act three-strikes holding. The Supreme Court held in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez that a dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike whether or not it is with prejudice, the opposite of McLean's rule.
More on how this was screened

All 71 flagged citations have been read; none supplies a separate adverse treatment. Later courts continue to cite McLean on sovereign immunity, frivolous claims, and when an incurable pleading may be dismissed with prejudice.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

320 later cases cite McLean v. United States; 71 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on McLean v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected McLean's rule that a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim does not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

    Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    That broad language covers all such dismissals: It applies to those issued both with and without prejudice to a plaintiff ’s ability to reassert his claim in a later action. ... Two Circuits do the opposite. See Millhouse v. Heath, 866 F. 3d 152, 162–163 (CA3 2017); McLean v. United States, 566 F. 3d 391, 396–397 (CA4 2009).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McLean v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace