Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Darryl A. Carter v. SouthLaw, et al. (moed, 2026-02-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Darryl A. Carter v. SouthLaw, et al.
E.D. Mo. · 2026 · confidence medium
College, 698 F. App’x 859 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s preservice dismissal of complaint that lacked subject matter jurisdiction).1 1 Pre-service dismissal is permitted for frivolous complaints, where it is “patently obvious the plaintiff could not prevail.” See Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir. 1991), and noting that it is “error to dismiss nonfrivolous complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) prior to service of process in light of Neitzke [v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)]” (emphasis added…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Porter v. Fox, Irs
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Addison v. Pash, 961 F.2d 731, 732 (8th Cir.1992); Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir.1991); Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991); see also Wabasha v. Smith, 956 F.2d 745, 745 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (majority held claims were frivolous and thus properly dismissed prior to service).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joseph F. Porter v. Susan Fox
8th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Addison v. Pash, 961 F.2d 731, 732 (8th Cir.1992); Smith v. *274 Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir.1991); Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991); see also Wabasha v. Smith, 956 F.2d 745, 745 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (majority held claims were frivolous and thus properly dismissed prior to service).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Kennedy
8th Cir. · 1995 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992); cf. Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991) (Sec. 1915(d) dismissal appropriate if the claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact). 3 Johnson's temporary pre-hearing placement in administrative segregation was constitutional; he acknowledges he was interviewed before placement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leroy Coolidge v. St. Paul Police Department
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Sec. 1915 (d). 3 Under section 1915(d), a district court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous-even prior to service-if it is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory" or where the factual contentions are "clearly baseless." Cf. Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir. 1991); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sylvester Addison v. Ronda Pash Del Casby David McPeak David Johnson R. Martin T. Frazier \(John Doe)
unknown court · 1992 · confidence medium
Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Elroy L. Wabasha v. Jim Smith, Lynn Delano, Doug Wynia, Karen Stacey, Michael B. Smith, M. Vonteti (4×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Id. 490 U.S. at 330 , 109 S.Ct. at 1834 . 6 While the Supreme Court has not addressed whether and under what circumstances Rule 12(b)(6) permits sua sponte dismissals, see id. at 329 n. 8, 109 S.Ct. at 1834 n. 8, this court has: "A complaint can be dismissed prior to service of process only if it is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d)." Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991).
discussed Cited "see" Shelby Harris v. Gerald Higgins Kelly Lock Glen Washburn Kathleen Krupp C. Kirsh
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Under section 1915(d), a district court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous only if it is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory" or if the factual contentions are "clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); see Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir. 1991).
cited Cited "see" Scott A. Witzke v. Peter M. Carlson Lawrence R. Campbell Calvin R. Edwards, in Their Individual and Official Capacities
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir. 1991).
cited Cited "see" Clark Lee Smith v. Julian Boyd Laverta Barns Gloria Blocker Dav Kovac
8th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Freeman v. Abdullah, 925 F.2d 266, 267 (8th Cir.1991) (error to dismiss nonfrivolous complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) prior to service of process in light of Neitzke).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenneth Freeman (Hassan Muhammad), on Behalf of Himself and the Muslim Community (Muslim Nation) Members
v.
Alim Abdullah, Muslim Coordinator for the Nebraska State Penitentiary, Jack Falkner, Director of Corrections, Harold Clarke, Warden, of the State Penitentiary
90-2327.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 8, 1991.
925 F.2d 266
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1759
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

925 F.2d 266

Kenneth FREEMAN (Hassan Muhammad), on Behalf of himself and
the Muslim Community (Muslim Nation) members, Appellant,
v.
Alim ABDULLAH, Muslim coordinator for the Nebraska State
Penitentiary, Jack Falkner, Director of
Corrections, Harold Clarke, Warden, of
the State Penitentiary, Appellees.

No. 90-2327.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 1991.
Decided Feb. 8, 1991.

Kenneth Freeman, pro se.

Marie C. Pawol, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb., for appellees.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

[*~266]1

Kenneth Freeman (Hassan Muhammad), an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary (NSP), appeals from the order entered by the District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissing, prior to service of process, his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint against prison officials for violation of his constitutional rights to equal protection and to freely exercise his Muslim religion. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand the case to the district court with directions.

2

Freeman filed the instant complaint alleging that dissolution of a particular Muslim sect at NSP violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights because, inter alia, it deprived him of religious classes, Jummah prayer, and Ramadan fasting. Freeman sought in forma pauperis status. After noting a present institutional balance of $.20 and an average income of $65.00 over a period of six months, the magistrate judge ordered Freeman to pay a partial filing fee of $16.25. The magistrate judge subsequently recommended that Freeman's claims be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

3

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court erred in adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Freeman's complaint prior to service of process. A complaint can be dismissed prior to service or process only if it is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). "A complaint is frivolous if the claims lack 'an arguable basis either in law or fact.' Sua sponte dismissals, however, are disfavored." Divers v. Department of Corrections, 921 F.2d 191, 193 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam), citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Here there is an arguable basis underlying Freeman's factual allegations and legal theories. See Saleem v. Evans, 866 F.2d 1313, 1314 (11th Cir.1989) (alleged absence of Muslim minister for Nation of Islam in prison served by minister from different Muslim sect stated prima facie case of first amendment violation).

4

We instruct the district court on remand to order modification of Freeman's filing fee from $16.25 to $6.50 (10% of average monthly income), and to allow Freeman sixty days from the date of this court's mandate to pay the modified filing fee. See In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 968-69 (2d Cir.1989) (partial filing fee modified from $18.47 to $6.00 where inmate's average monthly income was $61.53 and average end-of-month balance was $20; 30% of average monthly income crossed line between prompting second thought and deterring litigation; modified fee of 10% of average monthly income was sufficient exaction).

[*~267]5

Accordingly, the district court order is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to direct issuance of summons on defendants upon Freeman's timely payment of the modified filing fee.