Moreland v. Wharton, 89-8074
Decision Date | 01 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 89-8074,89-8074 |
Citation | 899 F.2d 1168 |
Parties | Jack MORELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim WHARTON, Warden, Ray Corley, Warden, Dr. Jonas, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Jack Moreland, Hardwick, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., William B. Hill, Daryl Robinson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Jack Moreland, a Georgia state prisoner, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against a prison doctor and two wardens. Moreland alleged that the doctor was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and that the wardens ignored Moreland's requests for proper medical treatment. Moreland also timely petitioned the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (1982). A magistrate considered Moreland's petition and recommended that Moreland's complaint be filed because he satisfied the financial requirements for IFP status, but the magistrate also recommended that the complaint be immediately dismissed as frivolous under section 1915(d). The magistrate found that Moreland's claim was essentially a medical malpractice claim and that the suit presented little chance of success on the merits as a civil rights action. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations; we vacate the district court's dismissal of Moreland's complaint.
The federal IFP statute is designed to ensure that all litigants, regardless of wealth, have reasonable access to the courts. But once a district court grants leave to proceed IFP, section 1915(d) allows the court to dismiss the complaint prior to service of process if the court is "satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious," 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), to spare defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering a meritless complaint. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 784 (11th Cir.1984); Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). Because section 1915(d) "is a broad grant of discretion to the courts regarding management of IFP actions," we review the dismissal of Moreland's actions for abuse of discretion. Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 741 (11th Cir.1987).
A lawsuit is frivolous if " 'the plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.' " Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 ( ). This standard, well established in this Circuit, is consistent with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Neitzke v. Williams, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989), in which the Court said that a frivolous complaint is one that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n. 5 (citation omitted).
The Neitzke Court held that a complaint that fails to state a claim is not invariably frivolous. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1832. We accept that it is possible, although unusual, for a complaint that fails to state a claim to nonetheless have an arguable basis in law and a fairly good chance of succeeding on its merits. But a complaint's failure to state a claim is evidence--perhaps even strong evidence--of its frivolousness; Neitzke says nothing to the contrary.
Regardless of whether a complaint states a claim, determining when an action is frivolous calls on the district court to exercise its discretion. See Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 45, 35 S.Ct. 236, 237, 59 L.Ed. 457 (1915) ( ); Ex parte Abdu, 247 U.S. 27, 30, 38 S.Ct. 447, 448, 62 L.Ed. 966 (1918) ( ); Washington-Southern Navigation Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U.S. 629, 634-35, 44 S.Ct. 220, 222, 68 L.Ed. 480 (1924) ( ). "[D]rawing from his years of experience in reading complaints and living lawsuits from start to finish," a district judge is uniquely qualified to decide the likelihood that a lawsuit will succeed on its merits. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 461 (E.D.N.C.), aff'd without opinion, 826 F.2d 1061 (4th Cir.1987).
The district court determined that Moreland's complaint set forth no constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Failure to state a claim might...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeSantis v. United Technologies Corp.
...v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987).3 "Arguable" is defined as capable of being convincingly argued. See Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir.1990) (reviewing complaint for II. Grounds Alleged for Appeal DeSantis intends to appeal on the grounds that 1.) the distric......
-
Unterberg v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc.
...medical justification, complaint stated cause of action under Eighth Amendment that survived motion to dismiss); Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir.1990) (holding that complaint for Eighth Amendment violation was improperly dismissed by district court); Wood v. Sunn, 865 F.2d 982 ......
-
Bey v. Natures Point Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...of being convincingly argued." Sun v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (quoting Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Where a claim is arguable, but ultimately will be unsuccessful, it should be ......
-
Townsend v. Staples, Inc.
...that a complaint is frivolous "if the 'plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.'" (quoting Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir. 1990))).6III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Aretha Townsend's Objections [7] to the......