Opinion ID: 706940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the definition of frivolous

Text: 8 Prior to the Supreme Court teachings in Neitzke v. Williams 5 and Denton v. Hernandez, 6 we held in Cay v. Estelle 7 that [a]n IFP proceeding may be dismissed if (1) the claim's realistic chance of ultimate success is slight; (2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact; or (3) it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim. Thereafter, however, we determined that Neitzke invalidated Cay 's third prong 8 and that Denton, invalidated its first prong. 9 There is no question, however, regarding the continued validity of Cay 's second prong. 10 In both Neitzke and Denton, the Court held that a complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 9 A court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 'delusional. 12 As Hicks' factual assertions obviously do not fall within this category, we must review Hicks' legal arguments to determine whether they have an arguable basis in law. 13 We initially examine his First Amendment claim and then his RFRA claim.