Isenberg v. Prasse
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clark v. Zimmerman (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
- Henry Howell v. Cataldi (3d Cir. 1972)
- Singleton v. Beadle (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 2019)
- DeFrank v. Pawlosky (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
- Leo McCracken and Park Anderson v. Riley Mitchell Jones, Riley Mitchell Jones, Cross-Appellant v. Leo McCracken and Park Anderson, Cross-Appellees (10th Cir. 1977)
- Samuel v. Busnuck (District Court, D. Maryland 1976)
- Stokes v. Hurdle (District Court, D. Maryland 1975)
- Padgett v. Stein (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
- Conner v. Jeffes (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
- Lovell v. Arnold (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
- Joseph Fischer v. Hon. William T. Cahill, Governor of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1973)
- Gigliotti v. Redevelopment Auth. of City of New Castle (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1973)
- James Morris Fletcher v. James Hook (3d Cir. 1971)
- Peoples Cab Co. v. Bloom (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
- Isenberg v. Prasse (3d Cir. 1970)
- Clarence L. Smith v. Alfred C. Clapp, Esq (3d Cir. 1970)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to file a civil rights complaint.
Plaintiff’s complaint names as defendants the Commissioner of the Bureau of Corrections and a dentist employed by the Bureau at its Pittsburgh Correctional Institution. He alleges in effect that while a state prisoner he was the victim of malpractice by the defendant dentist in connection with the extraction of his teeth and the treatment of his gums. He alleges that such conduct constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of equal protection under the United States Constitution.
The district court denied plaintiff’s motion on the ground that plaintiff was seeking to commence an action which was barred by the statute of limitations. We do not reach the ground relied on by the district court because we think the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis was justified on the ground that the claim is clearly frivolous because it amounts to no more than a tort claim for malpractice and as such is not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act. See Fear v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 413 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1969).
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.