# Denton v. Hernandez

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 4, 1992 · 504 U.S. 25

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432528

## Case

- **Full name:** DENTON, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA, Et Al. v. HERNANDEZ
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 4, 1992
- **Citations:** 504 U.S. 25; 112 S. Ct. 1728; 118 L. Ed. 2d 340; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 2689
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stevens
- **Judges:** O'Connor, Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Stevens, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 10,426 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Walp v. Scott — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432528

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under a prior version of § 1915, “if it appears that frivolous factual allegations could be remedied through more specific pleading, a court of appeals reviewing a § 1915(d) disposition should consider whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing…
- explaining that “a court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” and a complaint “may not be dismissed ... simply because the court finds the pl…
- holding that under a prior version of § 1915, if complaint “could be remedied through more specific pleading, a court of appeals . . . should consider whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice or without leave to amend” (emphas…
- concluding that "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible” and that "the district courts[ ] ... are in the best position to determine which cases fall into this category”
- explaining that factually frivolous complaints involve allegations which are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” “fantastic,” “delusional,” “irrational,” or “wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them”

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.
My disagreement with the Court is narrow. I agree with its articulation of the standard to be applied in determining whether an in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous under 28 U. S. C. § 1915 (d). Moreover, precedent supports the Court’s decision to remand the case without expressing any view on the proper application of that standard to the facts of the case. See, e. g., Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367 (1992). Nevertheless, because I am satisfied that the decision of the Court of Appeals is entirely consistent with the standard announced today, I would affirm its judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432528. Public record. Not legal advice.