Bazrowx v. Scott, 97-50257

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before JOLLY, WIENER and STEWART; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 136 F.3d 1053
• Parties: Timothy D. V. BAZROWX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; S.O. Woods, Jr.; Evelyn B. Williams; Kenneth Florance, Defendants-Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 97-50257,97-50257
• Decision Date: 25 March 1998

Page 1053

136 F.3d 1053 Timothy D. V. BAZROWX, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Wayne SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division; S.O. Woods, Jr.; Evelyn
B. Williams; Kenneth Florance,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-50257. United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit. March 25, 1998.

Timothy D. V. Bazrowx, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Page 1054

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before JOLLY, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal from the district court's sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), for failure to state a claim on which pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy D.V. Bazrowx, a Texas prison inmate, could recover in his civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requires us to establish as a matter of first impression in this circuit the appropriate standard of review for such a dismissal and, applying such standard, to determine whether the district court committed reversible error. We conclude that such dismissals under § 1997e(c) should be reviewed de novo on appeal, and hold that the district court did not err reversibly in dismissing Appellant's suit without prejudice for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

As Appellant was not proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint could not be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). ¹ Under the amendments to § 1997e and § 1915 wrought by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), the district court is required to dismiss a prisoner's complaint if it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. That phraseology is well known from Rule 12(b)(6), under which dismissal is "viewed with disfavor" and is reviewed de novo. ² Although other circuits have determined that appeals from dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A for failure to state a claim should be reviewed under the same de novo standard as appeals from dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6), ³ we find no persuasive or controlling authority for the appropriate standard of review for a dismissal under § 1997e(c) for failure to state a claim. As we nevertheless agree with the logic of those circuits that have adopted the de novo standard of review for such dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A because that is the appropriate standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals, we today adopt the de novo standard of review as appropriate in this circuit for appeals from such dismissals under §...