14-d Screening and Dismissal of Prisoner Cases

• Library: A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (2020 Edition)

14-D. Screening and Dismissal of Prisoner Cases

The PLRA requires federal courts to examine all suits by prisoners against government employees and all IFP cases at the start of litigation. The PLRA requires that a court must dismiss cases that are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or that seek damages from a defendant immune from damage claims.

The court must dismiss these claims as soon as the court sees them. All prisoner cases may be dismissed sua sponte ("sua sponte" means "without a motion by the defendant").¹⁴⁶ Additionally, all cases that are frivolous and malicious, all cases that fail to state a claim, and all cases involving immune defendants may also be dismissed sua sponte.¹⁴⁷ The Second and Tenth Circuits have held that these dismissals may be done without prior notice or an opportunity to respond.¹⁴⁸ But the Second Circuit has said this should only be done where "it is unmistakably clear that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that the complaint lacks merit or is otherwise defective."¹⁴⁹

Many federal courts have held that pro se litigants, or plaintiffs without an attorney, are allowed to fix complaints that are badly written before the court dismisses them under the PLRA.¹⁵⁰ A complaint is usually considered badly written if it fails to state a claim well enough. For a complaint not to state a claim adequately means that it does not state all the facts that are needed under the law to make the legal claim. While the Sixth Circuit held in McGore v. Wrigglesworth that the PLRA does not allow fixing complaints,¹⁵¹ the Jones v. Bock case may overturn that court's holding.¹⁵² In Jones v. Bock, the Supreme Court held that the screening requirement in the PLRA "does not-explicitly or implicitly-justify using different rules beyond the changes specified by the PLRA itself."¹⁵³ Since a plaintiff's right to fix badly written complaints-without even asking the court's permission, if an answer has not been filed-is part of the "usual procedural practice," the Sixth Circuit's holding probably does not apply anymore.¹⁵⁴ What this all means is that prisoners will be allowed to change their complaints if the court finds that they could be enough to state a claim if they are corrected.

The way in which appeals courts review PLRA dismissals is not the same everywhere. Some courts have held that dismissal under the PLRA is subject to de novo review, which means that the appeals court can decide the issue how it thinks is best.¹⁵⁵ However, some courts only use de novo review with dismissals for failure to state a claim. Those courts have held that dismissals that are frivolous or malicious are still reviewed under an "abuse of discretion" standard (which means that the appeals court will not overrule the district court's decision unless it thinks the district court made a very big mistake).¹⁵⁶ Other courts have not fully addressed the question.¹⁵⁷ The Second Circuit has held that the de novo standard applies under 28...