Case Citator › Dawn Ball v. Famiglio

Dawn Ball v. Famiglio

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

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
726 F.3d 448
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
144 of 144
Citing cases (total)
850
Treatment dates
2015–2021
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Dawn Ball v. Famiglio has been fully screened: all 144 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Coleman v. Tollefson abrogated Ball's rule postponing a PLRA strike while an appeal remains pending; Ball's other holdings survive, so the record reads overruled in part.
More on how this was screened

Coleman does not name Ball; it rejected the majority rule Ball had joined, and later courts cite Ball as "abrogated in part by Coleman v. Tollefson" (Rieco v. McCreary, 2019). The unpublished Jeremy John Wells v. Warden opinion separately declined Ball's failure-to-exhaust rule because contrary Eleventh Circuit precedent bound its panel. The other reviewed opinions applied Ball's PLRA strike, imminent-danger, exhaustion, and screening rules; copied history parentheticals reporting Coleman's act; or directed nearby treatment language at another authority, claim, or party argument.

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.

850 later cases cite Dawn Ball v. Famiglio; 144 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 Dawn Ball v. Famiglio?

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 abrogated Ball's rule that a qualifying PLRA dismissal does not count as a strike until it is affirmed on appeal or the opportunity to appeal closes.

    Coleman v. Tollefson · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We conclude that the courts must count the dismissal even though it remains pending on appeal.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The unpublished Eleventh Circuit opinion declined to follow Ball's rule that a dismissal solely for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not count as a PLRA strike, instead following contrary Eleventh Circuit precedent.

    Jeremy John Wells v. Warden · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    In fact, Wells emphasizes, all other circuits to have addressed the issue—the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits—have concluded that dismissal based on the failure to exhaust, in the absence of an enumerated ground, does not constitute a strike under the PLRA. See ... Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 459–60 (3d Cir. 2013), abrogated on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532 (2015) ... Despite circuit authority to the contrary, given White, we must conclude that dismissal for failure to exhaust qualifies as a strike under the PLRA.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dawn Ball v. Famiglio 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