Case Citator › Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of America, Intervenor

Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of America, Intervenor

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

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
116 F.3d 83
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
2001–2007
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Gibbs v. Roman was overruled in part. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc in Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, rejected Gibbs's rule that imminent danger under the three strikes statute is measured when the alleged incident occurred; danger must exist when the complaint is filed.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later adopted the filing-time rule and rejected Gibbs's contrary reasoning. All 52 flagged citations have been read. The 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

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.

52 later cases cite Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of America, Intervenor; 52 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 Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of America, Intervenor?

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 Third Circuit abandoned Gibbs's incident-time rule and held that imminent danger must exist when the complaint is filed.

    Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie · Third Circuit · filed

    Today we abandon the rule announced in Gibbs that “imminent danger” is assessed at the time of the alleged incident. We adopt, instead, the construction set forth by the Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a prisoner may invoke the “imminent danger” exception only to seek relief from a danger which is “imminent” at the time the complaint is filed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

  • The Ninth Circuit adopted the filing-time test and rejected Gibbs's incident-time rule as unsupported by the statute's language.

    Andrews v. Cervantes · Ninth Circuit · filed

    In examining those decisions, we find general agreement on two pertinent points: Prisoners qualify for the exception based on the alleged conditions at the time the complaint was filed. ... Because we agree that both determinations accord with the best reading of the statute, we adopt them as well. ... Abdul-Akbar overruled the Third Circuit’s holding in Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997), that the dispositive question was the “danger faced by the inmate at the time of the alleged incident, and not at the time the complaint was filed,” id. at 86. Gibbs offered no analysis of the statu- tory language to support its result.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Henry Gibbs, Jr. v. Ms. Marcia Roman, Sci Somerset Librarian, United States of America, Intervenor 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