How to Handle Sua Sponte Dismissals of Federal Lawsuits
Who, What, Where, When, and How
| Background: | You are the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit |
| Problem: | You are unsure whether the Court can spontaneously close your case |
| Solution: | You read the following appellate court precedent to help quell doubt |
QUESTION #1: CAN THE DISTRICT COURT SPONTANEOUSLY DISMISS MY UNPAID COMPLAINT?
Answer: Yes.
"Barren appeals the district court's order sua sponte dismissing the third amended complaint of his § 1983 action filed in forma pauperis against various members of the Nevada state law enforcement community..."In short, if the Judge determines that your [indigently-litigated] case is not fit for litigation then the statute empowers him/her to spontaneously dismiss your case (at any time).
"The district court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Barren had failed to present claims cognizable under § 1983..."
"Consequently, the district court did not err in dismissing this third amended complaint."
"AFFIRMED"
QUESTION #2: CAN THE DISTRICT COURT SPONTANEOUSLY DISMISS MY PAID COMPLAINT?
Answer: Yes (but only conditionally).
2. the court has notified you of its intent to spontaneously dismiss your case.
"We now hold that a district court sua sponte may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) as long as the dismissal does not precede service of process."
"The rule that emerges from these cases is that courts exercise their inherent power to dismiss a suit that lacks merit only when the party who brought the case has been given notice and an opportunity to respond..."
"The order denying that motion and sua sponte dismissing the case failed to give Wometco its due process rights to file a written response, present its arguments at a hearing, and amend its complaint."
QUESTION #3: CAN THE DISTRICT COURT SPONTANEOUSLY DISMISS MY PAID COMPLAINT BEFORE SERVICE?
Answer: No.
"While the magistrate judge did not reference 28 U.S.C. § 1915, presumably — as there is nothing in the record that indicates that the defendant was ever served or filed his own motion to dismiss — the magistrate judge was screening the case pursuant to § 1915, which governs in forma pauperis proceedings..."This ruling follows the necessities of due process:
"The district court erred when it dismissed this case. After paying the filing fee, Makere was not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,5 and the district court could not sua sponte dismiss his case under the screening provisions of § 1915..."
"VACATED AND REMANDED"
"Even if its claim ultimately has no merit, a party who brings a claim in good faith has a due process right to litigate that claim."
"Logically, § 1915(e) only applies to cases in which the plaintiff is proceeding IFP..."In short, if your Judge tries to dismiss your case before your defendant gets served then you should be able to win your appeal/objection. If you cite Makere v Early or Farese v Scherer then you should be fine.
"Therefore, because § 1915, which governs only IFP proceedings, does not apply to Farese's fees-paid RICO claim, the district court was not authorized to dismiss the RICO claim pursuant to § 1915."
I. Definitions
II. Legal Citations
(B) the action or appeal-
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
III. Bibliography
- Barren v. Harrington, 152 F. 3d 1193 (9th Circuit 1998)
- Farese v Scherer, 342 F. 3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2003)
- Imperato v. Wometco, 14-15282 (11th Cir. 2/28/17)
- Jefferson Fourteenth v. Wometco, 695 F.2d 524 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Makere v Early; 21-11901 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041 (8th Cir. 1991)
...POINTS & THINGS...
Please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
