Legal Document

490 U.S. 319 109 S.Ct. 1827 104 L.Ed.2d 338 Dean NEITZKE, etc., et al., Petitionersv.Harry Lawrence WILLIAMS, Sr. No. 87-1882. Argued Feb. 22, 1989. Decided May 1, Syllabus A provision in the federal forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), authorizes courts to dismiss an claim if, inter alia, "the action is frivolous or malicious." Respondent Williams, a prison inmate, filed motion proceed and complaint under 42 1983 District Court, charging that officials had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him medical treatment Fourteenth due process transferring without hearing less desirable cell house when he refused continue working because of condition. The Court dismissed sua sponte as 1915(d) on grounds Williams failed state upon which relief could be granted Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appeals, holding wrongly equated standard for failure 12(b)(6) with more lenient frivolousness permits dismissal only if petitioner cannot make any rational argument law fact entitling relief, affirmed ground prisoner clearly has no constitutionally protected liberty property interest being incarcerated particular institution wing. However, court reversed two five defendants, declaring itself unable certainty was support claim. Held: not automatically within meaning it fails standards were devised serve distinctive goals have separate functions. Under 12(b)(6)'s failure-to-state-a-claim standard—which designed streamline litigation dispensing needless discovery factfinding—a may based dispositive issue regard whether outlandish legal theory close but ultimately unavailing one, whereas 1915(d)'s intended discourag baseless lawsuits—dismissal proper (as Williams' claim) factual contentions lack arguable basis. considerable common between does mean one invariably encompasses other, since, where raises question district finds correctly resolved against plaintiff, appropriate, basis not. This conclusion flows from role replicating function screening out inarguable claims arguably meritorious ones played realm paid cases financial considerations. Moreover, accords understanding articulated other areas all unsuccessful are frivolous. It also consonant Congress' goal enacting statute assuring equality consideration litigants. To conflate these would deny indigent plaintiffs practical protections 12(b)(6)—notice pending opportunity amend before ruled on—which provided complaints 1915(d). Pp. 324-331. 837 F.2d 304 (C.A.7 1988), affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Robert S. Spear, Indianapolis, Ind., petitioners. George A. Rutherglen, respondent. Justice MARSHALL 1 presented answer, we hold, no. 2 * On October 27, 1986, respondent Harry Sr., inmate custody Indiana Department Corrections, United States Southern Indiana, naming correctional defendants. App. 38. alleged that, while at State Prison, been diagnosed doctor having small brain tumor affected equilibrium. Id., 40. Because this condition, placed year "medical idle status." report attached stated "[i]t very likely will condition some time come." 48. 3 further transferred Reformatory, notified reformatory staff about doctor's recommendation participate work program. 41. Despite notification, doctors treat tumor, id., 40-41, assigned do garment manufacturing work, 42. After equilibrium problems worsened working, disciplinary board responded cellhouse. 42-43. 4 charged treatment, Amendment, hearing, they Due Process Clause Amendment. 44. sought money damages declaratory injunctive relief. 45-46. Along complaint, pursuant 1915(a), stating assets income. 36-37. 5 12(b (6). Insofar claimed deficient care, pleadings did "deliberate indifference [his] serious needs," prisoners' must Estelle v. Gamble, 429 97, 104, 97 285, 291, 50 251 (1976), instead described noncognizable instance malpractice. Faulkner, Cause IP 86-1307-C (SD Jan. 16, 1987), reprinted 67. protested transfer violation, 26. gave reasons finding ensuing vacate judgment pleadings, reached same conclusions. Mar. 11, 29.1 6 Appeals Seventh Circuit part part. (1988). In its view, standard, authorizing "only entitle her relief," "more lenient" than 12(b)(6), stated. F.2d, 307. Unless there " 'indisputably absent basis' wrong asserted trial court, "[i]n case," should permit least point responsive required. Ibid. (citation omitted). 7 Evaluated held, defendants dismissed. Although allege level deliberate necessary survive stage proceedings, stated, "we relief" 308. Accordingly, remanded Court.2 dis issal frivolous, however. clear prisoners remaining wing prison, process. 308-309. 8 We petition writ certiorari, 488 816, 53, 102 32 (1988), those whom still stand decide necessarily over Courts disagreed.3 now affirm. II 9 enacted 1892 presently codified 1915, ensure litigants meaningful access courts. Adkins E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 331, 342-343, 69 85, 90-91, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). Toward end, 1915(a) allows litigant commence civil criminal filing good faith affidavit stating, pay costs lawsuit. Congress recognized, however, whose fees assumed public, unlike paying litigant, lacks economic incentive refrain malicious, repetitive lawsuits. prevent such abusive captious litigation, "if allegation poverty untrue, satisfied Dismissals often made prior issuance process, so spare prospective inconvenience expense answering complaints. See Franklin Murphy, 745 1221, 1226 (CA9 1984). 10 brevity generality terms left judiciary inconsiderable tasks fashioning procedures operates giving content indefinite adjectives.4 Articulating contours term "frivolous," neither nor accompanying congressional reports defines, presents task. have, quite our generally adopted formulae evaluating variants definition Sixth case Anders California, 386 738, 87 1396, 18 493 (1967). There, appeal matter "[none] points [are] their merits." 744, S.Ct., 1400. By logical extension, containing both allegations conclusions, either fact. As applied embraces conclusion, fanciful allegation.5 11 Where appellate diverged, satisfies standard. petitioning urge us adopt per se reading, primarily policy reading halt "flood litigation" generated swept judiciary. Brief Petitioners 7. position, petitioners note large growing number complaints, burden disposing meritless imposes efficient judicial administration, need discourage means gaining 'short sabbatical nearest courthouse.' 6, quoting Cruz Beto, 405 319, 327, 92 1079, 1084, 31 263 (1972) (REHNQUIST, dissenting). states "must anyway," assert, "delay[ing] determination until after service defendant's response delays inevitable." Reply 3. 12 recognize administration caused surfeit courts, possibility receive inadequate attention difficult identify amidst overwhelming Turner, When Prisoners Sue: Study Prisoner Section Suits Courts, Harv. L. Rev. 610, 611 (1979). Nevertheless, appraising petitioners' policy, interpret statute. Taking approach, evident goals, overlap considerable, follow falls afoul former fall latter. Appealing though proposal appear broadbrush pruning docket, statutory construction untenable. 13 law. Hishon King Spalding, 467 69, 73, 2229, 2232, 81 59 (1984); Conley Gibson, 355 41, 45-46, 78 99, 101-02, 80 (1957). procedure, operating assumption true, streamlines factfinding. Nothing confines sweep obviously insupportable. contrary, "it set facts proved consistent allegations," Hishon, supra, U.S., dismissed, one. What countenance dismissals judge's disbelief complaint's allegations. judges looking look elsewhere support.6 14 function, molds rather differently power confers. largely of, waste private resources upon, lawsuits initiate bringing suit threat sanctions vexatious suits 11. authority indisputably theory, unusual pierce veil baseless. Examples class immune suit, see, e.g., Goldsmith, 701 603 (CA7 1983), infringement exist, like Clause. latter describing fantastic delusional scenarios, too familiar. 15 extent even law, counsel dismissal.7 But other. follows naturally cost fear doubtless deter most claims, deterrence presumably screens far frequently theories ultimate apparent outset. 16 Close questions including 1983, occasions arisen motions claim, substantial enough warrant Court's granting review, certiorari jurisdiction, resolve them. See, (1976); McDonald Santa Fe Trail Transportation 427 273, 96 2574, 49 Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 29 619 (1971); Jones Alfred Mayer 392 409, 88 2186, 20 1189 (1968). can hardly said raised defective never brought distort measurably parlance. Indeed, recently reviewed found 9-to-0 vote had, fact, cognizable claim—a powerful illustration merit. Brower County Inyo, 489 593, 1378, 103 628 (1989). That context refers limited accords, moreover, Penson Ohio, 75, 346, 300 (1988) (criminal defendant right long frivolous); Christiansburg Garment Co. EEOC, 434 412, 422, 98 694, 700, 54 648 (1978) (attorney's assessed plaintiff who 1988 Title VII Rights Act 1964 unless Hagans Lavine, 415 528, 536-537, 94 1372, 1378-79, 39 577 (1974) (complaint want subject-matter jurisdiction frivolous). 17 Our today over-arching statute: "to assure litigants." Coppedge States, 369 438, 447, 82 917, 922, 21 (1962); see H.R.Rep. 52d Cong., 1st Sess., (1892). ordinarily accorded notice upon.8 These alert underlying challenge, enable meaningfully respond opposing clarifying conform requirements valid cause action. adversarial crystallizes pertinent issues facilitates review creating complete record case. Brandon Columbia Board Parole, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 155, 158, 734 56, (1984), cert. denied, 469 1127, 105 811, 83 804 (1985). contrast, permitted by, employed under, sometimes shield lawsuits, involve procedural protections. urge, thus unwarranted Rules. defect likelihood sponte, identical benefits adver ary proceedings contemplated Given putting similar footing plaintiffs, interpretation reasonably sustained. According opportunities commensurate similarly situated important pro therefore capable formulating legally competent initial pleadings. Haines Kerner, 404 519, 520, 594, 595, 30 652 (1972).9 19 hold accordingly Affirmed. Both ruling amend, denied leave pauperis. denial exclusively frivolousness, presumptively 1915's requirement. 22. ruling, adhered precedent effect retroactively regardless plaintiff's status. Wartman Branch 7, Division, Milwaukee County, Wis., 510 130, 134 (1975). Other Circuits, decision grant file threshold inquiry movant's poverty. 1226-1227, n. 1984); Boyce Alizaduh, 595 948, 950-951 (CA4 1979). confined occasion consider propriety varying applications reinstated Han Chul Choi, Neitzke, administrator infirmary responsible ensuring received adequate care. 304, 308 1988). held personal involvement three defendants' jobs justify "inference deprivation care." officials, appropriately Compare 159, (1985), Harris Menendez, 817 737, 740 (CA11 1987); Spears McCotter, 766 179, 182 (CA5 1985); Franklin, 1227; Malone Colyer, 710 258, 261 (CA6 1983). Catz Guyer, Forma Pauperis Litigation: Search Judicial Standards, Rutgers L.Rev. 655 (1978); Feldman, Indigents Courts: Statute—Equality Frivolity, Ford.L.Rev. 413 Payne Lynaugh, 843 177, 178 1988); 1227-1228; Johnson Silvers, 742 823, 824 Brandon, 59; Wiggins New Mexico Supreme Clerk, 664 812, 815 (CA10 1981), 459 840, 90, 74 (1982). patently insubstantial example, 12(b)(1). (federal entertain 'so attenuated unsubstantial absolutely devoid merit' ") omitted); Bell Hood, 327 678, 682-683, 66 773, 776-76, 90 939 (1946). At argument, estimated many, most, fail strictures, Tr. Oral Arg. estimate experience incline take issue. pass judgment, permissible scope, any, Petitioners' related suggestion matter, liberal pleading provides ample protection misses mark reasons. First, possible represented counsel. Second, applies Responsive clarify theories.

Classification Label: 1