Case Citator › Silva v. Di Vittorio

Silva v. Di Vittorio

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

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
658 F.3d 1090
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
147 of 147
Citing cases (total)
503
Treatment dates
2015–2022
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. All 147 flagged citations for Silva v. Di Vittorio have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. The reviewed opinions otherwise applied Silva's surviving access-to-courts rule while reporting treatment on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, often through the Ninth Circuit's recognition in Richey v. Dahne.
More on how this was screened

Direct review of Coleman confirms that the Supreme Court displaced Silva's rule postponing a PLRA strike until the prisoner exhausted or waived appellate review. Rivera v. Monko separately declined to follow Silva's affirmative-assistance and active-interference distinction, but did not affect the surviving Ninth Circuit rule that prison officials may not actively interfere with prisoners' nonfrivolous litigation.

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.

503 later cases cite Silva v. Di Vittorio; 147 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 Silva v. Di Vittorio?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court abrogated Silva's rule that a qualifying PLRA dismissal does not count as a strike until appellate review is exhausted or waived.

    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 Third Circuit identified Silva as the contrary side of a circuit split, characterized its affirmative-assistance and active-interference distinction as dictum, and aligned with the Seventh Circuit's broader post-pleading access rule.

    Rivera v. Monko · Third Circuit · filed

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expressed a different view in Silva v. Di Vittorio. Silva involved a claim that officials confiscated and destroyed the plaintiff’s legal documents in retaliation for pursuing civil rights cases against them. The district court dismissed Silva’s access-to-courts claim on the basis that the officials’ conduct did not stop him from filing complaints in the civil rights lawsuits. On appeal, Silva “acknowledg[ed] that prison officials have no affirmative duty to help him litigate his claims once they have been filed,” but “argu[ed] instead that prisoners have a right . . . to . . . challenge[] . . . the conditions of their confinement . . . without active interference by prison officials.” The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Silva had stated a claim for denial of access to the courts. In dictum, the court adopted Silva’s argument distinguishing between the right to “affirmative assistance” and against “active interference” in access-to-court claims
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Silva v. Di Vittorio 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