What Happens in the Initial Screening of a 1983 Case?

Many people do not know that after any federal case is filed, there is an initial screening by the clerk’s office for some fundamental checks on the complaint’s contents. 

For example, after a person files a complaint, the court will screen the complaint to determine whether it is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a valid federal claim or requests monetary relief from a defendant who has absolute immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This PLRA screening procedure does not apply to cases filed by people who are no longer incarcerated. Olivas v. Nevada (9th Cir. 2017) 856 F. 3d 1281.

The court can dismiss the complaint for any of these reasons before it is served on (sent to) the defendants.  Even if the court allows the case to proceed, it can dismiss the case at a later time if the court decides at a later point that the complaint is insufficient. 28 U.S.C. § 2925(e)(2).

When reviewing the complaint, the court must give a person who is proceeding without an attorney the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether the complaint shows that they may be entitled to relief. Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594; 30 L. Ed. 2d 652; King v. Atiyeh (9th Cir. 1987) 814 F. 2d 565, 567. 

A complaint is “frivolous” if the plaintiff does not make a rational argument in support of an actionable claim. Neitzke v. Williams (1989) 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827; 104 L. Ed. 2d 338; Franklin v. Murphy (9th Cir. 1984) 745 F. 2d 1221, 1227; Cato v. United States (9th Cir. 1995) 70 F. 3d 1103, 1106. 

Common reasons why cases are dismissed as frivolous are: 

Furthermore, a plaintiff — even one proceeding pro se — may be subject to money sanctions if the court decides the action is frivolous or that a factual statement in the complaint is a lie. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 11; Warren v. Guelker (9th Cir. 1994) 29 F. 3d 1386, 1388; Zatko v. Rowland (N.D. Cal. 1993) 835 F. Supp. 1174, 1182.

However, courts have the discretion to give a plaintiff with IFP (in forma pauperis) status an opportunity to amend the complaint to correct such problems. Lopez v. Smith (9th Cir. 2000) 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129; Bazrowx v. Scott (5th Cir. 1998) 136 F. 3d 1053, 1054; Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections (10th Cir. 1999) 165 F. 3d 803, 806.  However, one Circuit has held that under the PLRA, courts may not grant leave to amend. Benson v. O’Brian (6th Cir. 1999) 179 F. 3d 1014, 1016.

Generally, the court should grant permission to amend a complaint at least once unless the problems with the complaint could not possibly be cured. Franklin v. Murphy (9th Cir. 1984) 745 F. 2d 1221, 1228; Cato v. United States (9th Cir. 1995) 70 F. 3d 1103, 1106; Lopez v. Smith (9th Cir. 2000) 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129; see also Doe v. United States (9th Cir. 1995) 58 F. 3d 494, 497; Dolan v. Connolly (2d Cir. 2015) 794 F. 3d 290.

A plaintiff who files an amended complaint must restate all the allegations of the original complaint and add whatever information is necessary to fully state a valid legal claim. Lopez v. Smith (9th Cir. 2000) 203 F. 3d 1122, 1129.  A dismissal with leave to amend cannot be appealed unless the plaintiff files a written notice with the district court stating they do not intend to amend the complaint. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller (9th Cir. 1997) 104 F. 3d 1133, 1135.

However, the plaintiff need not pay a new filing fee or submit a new IFP application.  If the court wants to consider any additional information in deciding whether the complaint properly states a claim, the matter becomes a summary judgment proceeding in which both sides must be given an opportunity to present further arguments. Lucas v. California Dept. of Corrections (9th Cir. 1995) 66 F. 3d 245, 248.

During the initial screening, the court will also determine whether the plaintiff has attached all the necessary documents to support IFP status and will decide whether to grant an IFP request. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

The type of dismissal ordered by the court determines whether the plaintiff can try to re-file a new complaint on the issues. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, the case cannot be re-filed. If a case if dismissed without prejudice to refiling, the plaintiff still has the option of correcting the problems with the claims and filing a new complaint. See, e.g., Onapolis v. Lamanna (N.D. Ohio 1999) 70 F. Supp. 2d 809, 810. However, the plaintiff must pay a new filing fee or file a new IFP application. 

If a case is dismissed, the plaintiff may appeal the dismissal to the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over the district.  For all federal lawsuits in California, the proper court is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although this article appears on our website, it would be a mistake to attribute it to our legal acumen.  Instead, all credit should be given to the Prison Law Office and their treatise, California Prison and Parole Law Handbook, from which most of the content is the article is drawn.