# Joseph Jackson, II v. State of Arizona (Unknown) Terry, Deputy Acting Warden (Unknown) Avenenti, Deputy Warden

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 18, 1989 · 885 F.2d 639

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479513

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph JACKSON, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA; (Unknown) Terry, Deputy Acting Warden; (Unknown) Avenenti, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 18, 1989
- **Citations:** 885 F.2d 639; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13889; 1989 WL 106313
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Farris
- **Judges:** Farris, Thompson, Trott
- **Cited by:** 2,044 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479513

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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”
- holding that slippery floors, by themselves do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479513. Public record. Not legal advice.