Opinion ID: 767677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Franklin v. Murphy

Text: 70 The Armstrong requirements were not without exceptions. In Franklin, we considered whether a district court, pursuant to S1915(d), may dismiss a frivolous IFP action sua sponte before service of process on the defendants. 745 F.2d at 1225-26. We responded affirmatively. We recognized that there was a fundamental difference between a litigant proceeding after paying the filing fee and one proceeding IFP: 71 [W]here the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the impact of additional factors must be considered. Most importantly, IFP plaintiffs are immune from the economic deterrents to filing frivo lous lawsuits, such as assignment of costs of suit and tort liability for abuse of process. In forma pauperis actions also involve more of the court's own resources. Id. at 1226. 72 Thus, in Franklin, we carved out a specific exception to the Armstrong requirements: Where a pro se prisoner proceeds IFP, a district court may dismiss that litigant's complaint, without service of process and without an opportunity to amend, if the court concludes that the action is frivolous. We also concluded in Franklin that complaints whose only defect was failure to state a claim could be characterized as frivolous and dismissed under S1915(d). See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. Thus, after Franklin, a complaint that failed to state a claim could be immediately dismissed, even if not properly frivolous, under S1915(d) prior to service of process and without an opportunity to amend. 73 The Franklin opinion failed to recognize that many complaints that failed to state a claim could not properly be characterized as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Nevertheless, it was correct in recognizing that proper dismissals under S1915(d), which consisted of complaints that were frivolous, malicious, or sought monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, did not come with procedural protections.