Case Citator › Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health

Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
938 F.3d 69
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
106 of 106
Citing cases (total)
951
Treatment dates
2024
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health has one confirmed treatment among all 106 flagged citations read. In Mostafa v. Barr, a Colorado district court followed Tenth Circuit precedent requiring exhaustion before the first pleading and rejected the contrary approach Garrett took under federal law.
More on how this was screened

The treatment is listed below. The other citing opinions applied Garrett’s pleading and exhaustion rules or reported the history of different cases. A Supreme Court denial of certiorari included criticism of Garrett only in a dissent.

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.

951 later cases cite Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health; 106 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 Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health?

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

Declined to follow

  • Following Tenth Circuit precedent, the district court declined to follow Garrett’s rule that a later pleading may cure a PLRA exhaustion defect.

    Mostafa v. Barr · D. Colo. · filed

    but see Saddozai v. Davis, 35 F.4th 705, 708-10 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the plaintiff’s “operative third amended complaint is the only relevant pleading for purposes of the PLRA exhaustion analysis” and plaintiff fully exhausted his claims by the time he filed the third amended complaint); Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 91 (3d Cir. 2019) (“we conclude that there is nothing in the PLRA to indicate that a plaintiff cannot employ Rule 15 to file a supplemental pleading to cure an initial filing defect,” such as administrative exhaustion).22 Mr. Mostafa’s second amended complaint, filed on November 2, 2020, alleges that he did not have access to “feast meals allowed according to Islamic faith.” Docket No. 234 at 6, ¶ 31. However, Mr. Mostafa did not exhaust his remedy about religious feast meals until February 18, 2021. Id., ¶ 32. Mr. Mr. Mostafa’s religious feast meal allegations “first entered the litigation” in his second amended complaint. See Segovia, 929 F.3d at 1228. Therefore, Mr. Mostafa’s fourth amended complaint has the same exhaustion defect that existed at the time his second amended complaint was filed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Kareem Garrett v. Wexford Health 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