Opinion

Allan Neal Rawlings v. Veterans Administration Medical Center

  • 999 F.2d 540
  • 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26225
  • 1993 WL 243833
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Jul 6, 1993
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.7%

The opinion

999 F.2d 540

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Allan Neal RAWLINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6427.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 6, 1993.

1

Before MARTIN and SILER, Circuit Judges, and WEBER, District Judge. *

ORDER

2

Allan Neal Rawlings, a pro se Kentucky resident, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

3

In October 1992, Rawlings moved the district court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order to file a civil complaint wherein he sought monetary relief from the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Louisville, Kentucky; various medical personnel; various Louisville firemen and police; and a state official for allegedly obtaining copies of his medical records without a court order or his consent. Rawlings did not state in what capacity he sued the state official. The district court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and then dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(d).

4

In his timely appeal, Rawlings argues that the district court erred by not giving him the opportunity to present his case. He requests oral argument.

5

Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). The district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir.1990). Claims that lack an arguable basis in law include claims for which the defendants are clearly entitled to immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28 ; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199 .

6

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rawlings's complaint as frivolous. See Denton, 112 S.Ct. at 1734 . Accordingly, we deny the request for oral argument and affirm the district court's order. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Herman J. Weber, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.