Bazrowx v. Scott Bazrowx v. Scott

Bazrowx v. Scott

136 F.3d 1053, 1998.C05.109

    • $0.99
    • $0.99

Publisher Description

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 § 1997e(c); and we now proceed to review the dismissal of Appellant's claim accordingly.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1998
March 25
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
3
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SELLER
Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc
SIZE
48.4
KB

More Books by Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Battle v. Memorial Hospital At Gulfport Battle v. Memorial Hospital At Gulfport
2000
Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers
1999
Kee v. City of Rowlett Texas Kee v. City of Rowlett Texas
2001
United States V. Abrego United States V. Abrego
1998
Martin''s Herend Imports Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading usa Martin''s Herend Imports Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading usa
1997
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative Inc. v. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative Inc. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative Inc. v. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative Inc.
1997