Opinion ID: 2547165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pre-service review of complaints with in forma pauperis status

Text: In Nevada, a district court is authorized under NRCP 11(c)(2) to impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition of a party's conduct in frivolously or vexatiously pursuing an action or defense, even when that party is proceeding in proper person. As perhaps one of the most extreme NRCP 11 sanctions, the court may sua sponte dismiss a completely unwarranted action or claim in order to prevent an in forma pauperis litigant from continuing in a course of completely baseless litigation or harassment. [8] Of course, a party against whom an NRCP 11 sanction is proposed must first be afforded notice and an opportunity to oppose the sanction's imposition. [9] Other jurisdictions similarly permit a complaint to be dismissed if, upon holding an abbreviated evidentiary hearing before service of process to determine whether an accompanying application for in forma pauperis status should be granted, the court determines that the applicant is not indigent or that the action is frivolous. [10] These courts have followed the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's lead in Spears v. McCotter. [11] In Spears, the court recognized that preliminary evidentiary hearings regarding the specificity of a trial court complaint and accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis may be held in order to dig beneath the conclusional allegations; to reduce the level of abstraction upon which the claims rest; to ascertain exactly what scenario the ... claims occurred, as well as the legal basis for the claim. [12] The court concluded that if, at the hearing, the complaint is determined frivolous, the action may be dismissed under the federal in forma pauperis statute. [13] Although we generally approve of the Spears approach, we do not adopt it completely. Unlike the federal statute, Nevada's in forma pauperis statute, NRS 12.015, does not authorize the district court to review a complaint (or a petition) for frivolity when considering a litigant's application to proceed without paying court fees and costs. [14] Accordingly, upon receiving a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court must first consider the application's merits and determine whether the accompanying affidavit and any additional investigation [15] demonstrate that the applicant is unable to pay the costs of proceeding with the action. If the court so finds, the court must grant the applicant leave to proceed without the payment of costs and file the complaint. Nevertheless, once the complaint is filed, the court is free to review the complaint's merits for apparent defects. If the complaint appears completely frivolous on its face, meaning that it appears to lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact, [16] then the court may direct the clerk to defer issuing the summons(es) pending the completion of its review. The court may then hold a preliminary evidentiary hearing with the litigant to determine whether the action should be allowed to proceed. If the district court determines that the action or a specific claim is indeed frivolous, the court can dismiss the action or claim, as the case may be, in accordance with NRCP 11. [17] We emphasize that, although this procedure is constitutionally permissible, [18] the dismissal of a complaint based on information obtained in a Spears -type hearing is an extreme action, and if the complaint can be amended to cure any apparent defects, the litigant should be permitted to do so. This pre-service review process will not only spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering frivolous or incoherent complaints, [19] but will also assist the court in deciphering the litigant's basic allegations and aid the litigant in presenting a more legally viable complaint, if possible.