explaining that a court must “notify all parties of its intent to dismiss the complaint” and “give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a court must “notify all parties of its intent to dismiss the complaint” and “give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal.”
- explaining that sua sponte dismissal against a non-moving defendant is disfavored when the plaintiff has “no opportunity to amend their complaint[] or make legal arguments against the dismissal”
- requiring that: (1) the complaint be served on defendants; (2) notice be given to parties of the court’s intent to dismiss; (3) plaintiff and defendant be afforded an opportunity to respond; and (4) if the case is dismissed, the court must state the reasons therefor
- exercising the court’s “supervisory authority” to hold that a district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim sua sponte only if five requirements are met, one of which is providing the plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to respond
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by statute, as recognized in In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act
716 F.2d 1109 (6th Cir. 1983), overruled by statute as stated in Coleman v. Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175, 177
Overruled in part by Wagenknecht v. United States, 533 F.3d 412 (2008)
716 F.2d 1109, 1112 (6th Cir. 1983) (emphasis added), overruled in part as stated in Wagenknecht v. United States, 533 F.3d 412
The opinion
NEESE, Senior (retired District) Judge,
concurring.
As the District Judge’s decision is vacated and this matter remanded under the supervisory powers of this Court, I concur, understanding, as I do, that the majority finds in the complaint a claim by this prisoner of an unreasonable restriction by his custodians upon his right to free association under the Constitution, First Amendment.