Source: https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242685-case-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:42:56+00:00

Document:
In Sills, the Appellant filed a motion for summary reversal of the district courts sua sponte dismissal of complaint under 1915 (d) Sills sought access to military law research materials to assist him in his pursuit of post-conviction remedies. Upon receipt of the appellant's complaint, the district court granted the appellant leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and simultaneously dismissed the complaint sua sponte, under § 1915(d). See Id 761 F.2d at 793.
The Circuit Court granted Sills motion for summary reversal because it was clear that the district court cursilory treated Sills meritorious claims". . . .
Any productive lead would help.
The blue links under the case will take you to subsequent cases that cite Sills.
Appreciate the effort but that's the 'free' research engine (Google Scholar) that I regularly look at Cited by and How Cited, this case seems to be within the D.C. Circuit I have found no internal citations in the Circuit that I requested. Again appreciate it.
The 9th Circuit has never referenced that case in any decision. You'd be better off searching under the particular statute.
I spotted that as far as google scholar took me. Tried the statue no close analogous case.
Describe what happened to you and what your goal is. Maybe somebody here will have a clue.
The best I can say as to not get long winded is that Sills is spot on the significant issues of law.
There is no citation to that case by the Ninth Circuit or by any federal district court in that circuit. Indeed, nearly all the citations to that case are within the DC circuit. That is not surprising; I expect that each circuit has its own case law on what is good enough to withstand a failure to state claim dismissal, so the courts of the Ninth Circuit would cite that authority. Your FOIA/PA appeal is factually different from the situation in Sills, so I'm having trouble seeing where you find this case is "spot on."
Bear in mind that Sills was decided in 1985, prior to the amendment of 28 USC § 1915 in 1996. That Act renumbered what was § 1915(d) to § 1915(e) and also expanded (e) to include that the court may dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim and for suing a defendant for money damages when that defendant is immune from such a claim. When Sills was decided, the court could only dismiss the case sua sponte for frivilous or malicious claims. In short, that amendment made the statute read as it does today. But it was different in 1985, which is why the Sills court focused only the friviolous standard and did not discuss dismissal for failure to state a claim. As I understand it, the district court dismissed your complaint because it believed you failed to state a claim, not because it was frivolous, so the Sills discussion doesn't really cover that. Of course, the trial court should have explained in its opinion why the complaint failed to state claim so that the appeals court could properly review the decision. If that is the part you find spot on then there should be ninth circuit opinions that you can use for the point that the court should explain the reasons why it failed to state a claim. Apart from that, though, I'm not seeing how it is "spot on".
Bear in mind that Sills was decided in 1985, prior to the amendment of 28 USC § 1915 in 1996. That Act renumbered what was § 1915(d) to § 1915(e) and also expanded (e) to include that the court may dismiss the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim and for suing a defendant for money damages when that defendant is immune from such a claim. When Sills was decided, the court could only dismiss the case sua sponte for frivilous or malicious claims. In short, that amendment made the statute read as it does today. . . . . . . . . As I understand it, the district court dismissed your complaint because it believed you failed to state a claim, not because it was frivolous, so the Sills discussion doesn't really cover that. Of course, the trial court should have explained in its opinion why the complaint failed to state claim so that the appeals court could properly review the decision. If that is the part you find spot on then there should be ninth circuit opinions that you can use for the point that the court should explain the reasons why it failed to state a claim. Apart from that, though, I'm not seeing how it is "spot on".
As you know I am forced to juggle cases, (and this case is a proactive research that I foresee that the research will prove beneficial to my case) actually what meant by ''spot on'' is the sequence of events of how the district court treated the complaint, and I understand that from what I read of Sills, is that dismissals for frivolousness was the only option the courts had to dismiss complaint that have been granted IFP status. The similarity is that it relates to the same statute just a different (sub)paragraph and its treatment of the complaint and sequence of events is strikingly similar. But in my case I believe the merits are much stronger than Sills.
Can anyone tell me if United States v, Zajanckauskas 346 F. Supp 2d 251 (D, Mass. 2003) is cited outside the Ninth Circuit or Federal Court of claims,/Federal Circuit and does it remain good law in that circuit.
The case you cited was in the district court in Massachusetts, which is in the First Circuit. District Courts opinions are not binding precedent, even in their own Circuit, much less in a different Circuit. BTW, the decision was affirmed by the First Circuit and he was deported.
I understand that a it might not be binding the lower court would not binding on the upper court and that once denaturalized the next nature step is deportation. But that was not the pat of the read that sparked my interest. It was the counter-claim. .
District court decisions are not only not binding on Circuit courts. They are not even binding on other District courts.
Correct me if I am wrong although District Court decisions are not binding but when Circuit Courts in some instances affirm in whole in pat the decision which that logic is cited or used in a different case on the subject matter?
If I'm understanding your question correctly: while a federal District Court decision would generally not be binding on other federal courts in most circumstances, another federal court may nevertheless view the prior District Court decision as persuasive -- that is, the second federal court decides that the District Court's analysis of the issue and the resulting decision is correct and, accordingly, the second federal court chooses to analyze and resolve the matter before it in the same way that the District Court analyzed and resolved the matter before it in its prior decision, even though the second federal court is not generally required to follow the prior District Court opinion.
Decisions of federal district courts are not binding on anyone (including other judges in the same district, or even the same judge). They may, however, be cited as persuasive authority.
Can anyone confirm if Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 226, 233 (2014); is the same Vargas v. United States,Fed Cl. No. 12-508C (Jan 2014)(EDK). The reason I ask because I am spending too much time and getting same results, I'e gone to different 'free' research engines which is the ones I can afford and cant get past cases that cite Vargas but not the case itself. .
Just a question for knowledge, can someone tell me why cases like Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 226 (2014), can only be accessed by fee research engines? The reason I ask is because I have ran into a lot these type of cases over the years.
First, that's a claims court decision, and the claims court is a trial court, not an appeals court. Thus, it is not binding case law. A lot of free sites only get the appellate cases because those the more important ones. It costs a lot of money to round up the cases at the trial courts and then put them on the site, and free sites aren't getting paid by users for that.
Something you might consider for pulling federal court opinions, including in the Vargas case that you have cited: set up a PACER account.
The account is free to set up.
The charges for searches and reviewing documents are fairly minimal to begin with, and are waived if less than $15 total in any calendar quarter.
And there is no charge for access to judicial opinions.
Meaning you could search PACER for this Vargas case for a nominal cost, and read and download a copy of the opinion that you are interested in for free. And, if you don't rack up more than $15 in the calendar quarter, they won't charge you for the search either.

References: § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v.