Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim Bevis
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
35 later cases cite Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim Bevis; 35 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 Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim Bevis?
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 Sixth Circuit treated Baxter's rule barring amendment of a PLRA complaint as overruled in part through LaFountain.
Keith Gunther v. Ed Castineta · Sixth Circuit · filed
The defendants argue that such objections are effectively an amendment to the complaint, and that such an amendment is barred by binding precedent in this circuit, including Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489 (6th Cir.2002) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir.1997). To the extent that the eases that the defendants cite support their argument, those cases have been overruled. In LaFountain, we held that “a district court can allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint even when the complaint is subject to dismissal under the PLRA.” LaFoun-tain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir.2013). In so doing, we explicitly overruled our contrary holding in McGore, on the ground that the Supreme Court had made clear that “the PLRA’s screening requirement does not — explicitly or implicitly— justify deviating from the usual procedural practice beyond the departures specified by the PLRA itself.” LaFountain, 716 F.3d at 951 (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007)). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the allegations made in Gunther’s objections as well as those in his complaint, and we accord them due consideration in reviewing Gunther’s appeal.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Sixth Circuit called Baxter's PLRA exhaustion pleading requirements into question in light of Hill v. McDonough.
Orbain Owens v. George Keeling · Sixth Circuit · filed
Although we have held that this admonition did not affect our earlier decision regarding the PLRA exhauation-pleading requirements, Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 489-90 (6th Cir.2002), the Supreme Court’s recent reiteration, in the context of a § 1983 prisoner claim, that "[s]pecific pleading requirements are mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and not, as a general rule, through case-by-case determinations of the federal courts,” Hill v. McDonough, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2103, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006), again calls into question our PLRA exhaustion-pleading requirements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim Bevis 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