noting that “IFP litigants, unlike paying litigants, have little ‘economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits,’ so “to prevent such abusive litigation, [28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)] permits federal courts to dismiss IFP claims ‘if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.’”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “IFP litigants, unlike paying litigants, have little ‘economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits,’ so “to prevent such abusive litigation, [28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)] permits federal courts to dismiss IFP claims ‘if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.’”
- holding that an allegation 14 describing a slippery prison floor, without more, “does not state even an arguable claim for 15 cruel and unusual punishment”
- explaining that allegations describing slippery prison floors, without more, “do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment”
- holding that allegation describing slippery prison floor, without more, “does not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith
885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130
Superseded on other grounds by Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (2000)
885 F. 2d 639, 640 (9" Cir. 1989)(discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)), superseded on other grounds by Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122
The opinion
FARRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I would affirm but Neitzke v. Williams, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1830-31 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) requires the result that we reach.
Upon remand, the district court may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). The result will be the same but Neitzke requires a more restricted standard when the dismissal is based upon frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). As the Supreme Court held in Neitzke :
The question presented is whether the complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is automatically frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). The answer, we hold, is no.
Neitzke v. Williams, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1829 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).
*642 I am compelled therefore, to join the majority.