Cristal C. Brisco
How Judge Brisco decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
For a merely curable failure to state a claim she takes the opposite course, granting leave to amend by a deadline with a caution that the case will otherwise be dismissed under 1915A.
“if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted”
Cautions
At 28 U.S.C. 1915A screening Brisco dismisses where an affirmative defense such as PLRA exhaustion is established on the face of the complaint (a prisoner who sued before exhausting has pleaded himself out of court), and she denies leave to amend as futile because amendment cannot cure a pre-suit exhaustion bar.
“It is legally frivolous to file a case that must be dismissed. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
28 U.S.C. 1915A merits screening dismissal of a pro-se prisoner 1983 complaint, WITHOUT PREJUDICE; leave to amend DENIED as futile. Quote: 'It is legally frivolous to file a case that must be dismissed. For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).' Ground: PLRA exhaustion (1997e(a)) -- prisoner sued before exhausting the IDOC grievance process; 'no futility exception' (Massey; Dole); 'sue first, exhaust later approach is not acceptable' (Chambers v. Sood); plaintiff 'pleaded himself out of court' (Early v. Bankers Life), so dismissal at screening is proper where the affirmative defense is established 'so plainly as to make the suit frivolous' (Schillinger). Leave denied as futile (Hukic) because amendment cannot cure a pre-suit exhaustion bar. The dismissal was without prejudice; leave to amend was denied.
28 U.S.C. 1915A merits screening order: current pro-se prisoner complaint does not state a claim, but GRANTS leave to amend (deadline 2025-01-15) with a dismissal caution. Quote: 'The Court [grants] Roy Viverette until 1/15/2025, to file an amended complaint and CAUTIONS Roy Viverette that, if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A without further notice because the current complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.' Case DISMISSED 2025-01-22 (entry 9) when no amendment was filed. Contrasts with Johnson: leave-to-amend offered for a curable failure-to-state-a-claim (Luevano default), not denied. Prejudice does not apply; leave to amend was granted.
Administrative dismissal without prejudice of a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 case for failure to pay the partial filing fee and failure to prosecute. Quote: 'This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Cristal C Brisco on 5/17/24.' This procedural disposition did not decide a party motion.
Put Judge Brisco's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Brisco actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Brisco's own signed orders and cites them.