Elliott v. Bronson, 993

• Decision Date: 05 April 1989
• Docket Number: D,No. 993,993
• Citation: 872 F.2d 20
• Parties: Robin B. ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden BRONSON, Somers Correctional Institution, Warden Crose, Somers Correctional Institution, Warden Orszak, Somers Correctional Institution, David Cormeir, Counselor, Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Chuck Conners, Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Mike Fountain, Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Giovanni, Somers Correctional Institution, State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, Warden Miller, U.S.P. Marion, Warden John Doe, U.S.P. Leavenworth, and R. Elledge, Counselor, U.S.P. Leavenworth, In their individual and official capacities, Defendants. ocket 88-2242.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 20

872 F.2d 20

Robin B. ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden BRONSON, Somers Correctional Institution, Warden Crose, Somers Correctional Institution, Warden Orszak Somers Correctional Institution, David Cormeir, Counselor Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Chuck Conners Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Mike Fountain Somers Correctional Institution, Officer Giovanni, Somers Correctional Institution, State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, Warden Miller, U.S.P. Marion, Warden John Doe, U.S.P. Leavenworth, and R. Elledge, Counselor, U.S.P. Leavenworth, In their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 993, Docket 88-2242.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 4, 1989.

Decided April 5, 1989.

Elizabeth S. Stong, New York City (Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, New York City, Lawrence O. Kamin, Richard L. Klein, Olivia Sohmer, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, PRATT and MINER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robin Bernard Elliott appeals from an order and judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Alan H. Nevas, Judge, dismissing his pro se complaint, sua sponte, for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for failing to make a short and plain statement of his claims, and for being "frivolous" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Elliott, a prisoner at the Connecticut Correctional Institution-Somers facility, brought this action in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for injunctive relief and damages based on acts committed in connection with his administrative classification and the conditions of his confinement. On the same day that Elliott's complaint was docketed, and before ordering service on any defendant, the district court issued an order dismissing the complaint "without prejudice", but without granting Elliott leave to replead. The court entered judgment on April 26, 1988, from which Elliott filed a timely notice of appeal. Since the complaint was dismissed prior to service on defendants, the appeal is unopposed.

The Supreme Court has long held that courts must construe pro se complaints liberally, applying less stringent standards than when a plaintiff is represented by counsel. E.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam). While we recognize that early dismissals of patently frivolous complaints are appropriate and helpful in expediting the burdensome calendars of our district courts, we have frequently cautioned against over-use of the draconian device of sua sponte dismissals of pro se complaints before service of process. See, e.g., Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 43 (2d Cir.1988); Massop v. Coughlin, 770 F.2d 299, 301 (2d Cir.1985); Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir.1982). Where colorable and plausible claims are advanced, dismissal at such an early stage deprives the court of the benefit of the defendant's answering papers, Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d at 15, and often results in the " 'wasteful * * * shuttling of the lawsuit between the district court and the appellate courts.' " Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1983) (quoting Lewis v. New York, 547 F.2d 4, 6 (2d Cir.1976)).

Applying these general principles, we are convinced that the district court acted prematurely in dismissing this complaint. Liberally construed, the complaint alleges sufficient facts to suggest potentially meritorious claims that Elliott's confinement in the F-Block...