green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
50.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2022–2023 ·
…a short and plain statement of the claim 19 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
at p. 495
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2021–2024 ·
…a short and plain statement of the claim 23 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
at p. 495
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1997 ·
…raises no retroactivity concerns under landgraf.
at p. 496
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gindraw v. Dendler
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Morrison v. City of Billings, et al.
Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495-96 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that “three strikes” provision is merely procedural and raises no retroactivity concerns), When Morrison filed his suit, it was barred by immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cannon v. San Francisco Police Department
No. 20. 22 The Court now screens the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 26 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) 27 are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 1 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 Plaintiff brings the FAC against 23 named defendants and 60 unknown “Doe” defendants. 3 Dkt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Barge v. Ken Bett's Towing Company
Likewise, she requests “Declaratory Relief 1 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bamdad v. Drug Enforcement Administration
See, e.g., Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir.2002) (“[Although immunity is an affirmative defense, [Section] 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) directs the district court to dismiss a prisoner’s pro se suit ‘at any time’ if the defendant is immune.”); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (“[Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) ] * * * requires us to dismiss' an appeal sua sponte at any time if the case * * * seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henderson v. Ayers
Additionally, when a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the PLRA requires this Court to dismiss a case at any time it concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); Anderson v. Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir.1997); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hubbs v. Alamao
This Final Report and Recommendation addresses plaintiffs objections. *1076 DISCUSSION IV When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court is required to dismiss a case at any time it determines an action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); Anderson v. Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir.1997); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir.1997) (hol…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Although this court has previously ruled to the contrary in Marks v. Slocum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), Lopez suggests in his brief that the reasoning in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Martin v. Hadix, 119 S.Ct. 1998 (1999), is inconsistent with our earlier decision, and that we should therefore overrule Marks.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. Smith
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Although this court has previously ruled to the contrary in Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam), Lopez suggests in his brief that the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 , 119 S.Ct. 1998 , 144 L.Ed.2d 347 (1999), is inconsistent with our earlier decision, and that we should therefore overrule Marks .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geoffrey Benson v. Greg O'Brian
See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.) (“As Appellant was not proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint could not be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 156 , 142 L.Ed.2d 128 (1998); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (“ § 1915(e)(2) ... applies to prisoner proceedings in forma pauperis”); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271 , 273 n. 1 (8th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8298, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,516 Max Lopez, Jr. v. G.A. Smith, Warden Larry Loo, Chief Medical Officer A. Acevedo, Chief Dental Officer Patterson, Counselor 4a-2r R. Keiner, Dentist M.P. McClure 4a-2r Appeals Coordinator
P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4 1 In Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam), we concluded that § 1915(e)(2) applies retroactively.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. Smith
In Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam), we concluded that § 1915(e)(2) applies retroactively.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3490, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4827 Alvin Howard Canell v. Officer Roderick Lightner Robert Skipper, Multnomah County Sheriff Multnomah County Detention Center
Accordingly, § 1915(g) does not apply in Canell's case. 8 Our conclusion is consistent with Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Canell v. Lightner
Our conclusion is consistent with Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peter Franks v. Charles Moose, Portland Police Chief Vera Katz, Portland Mayor
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We are required to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal sua sponte if the case "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sidles v. Lewis
(2×)
The court dismissed Sidles' action sua sponte, however, at the conclusion of a telephonic hearing held to resolve other motions. 4 Although we would prefer a more definite statement from the district court about the reasons for dismissal, the court clearly had the authority--indeed, the obligation--to dismiss this action, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii), at any point it became clear that the action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 1 See Anderson v. Angelone, 123 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir.1997); Marks v. Solc…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marvin Harris v. M.E. Aoussopaulos K. Adams James Gomez, Director, Dept. Of Corrections, and Charles D. Marshall, Warden W. Rulff
This Court recently determined that PRLA Section 1915(e)(2), requiring this Court to dismiss such cases sua sponte, "does not impair the substantive rights of prisoners, but instead merely affects the ability of prisoners to maintain appeals in forma pauperis." Marks v. Slocum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. California Board of Prison Terms
DISCUSSION I When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) requires this Court to dismiss sua sponte an action it determines is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. *1306 § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i-ii); Anderson v. Angelone, 128 F.3d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir.1997); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortega v. Spivey
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
We are required to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal sua sponte if the case "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Newman v. (Unknown) Jensen (Unknown) Leslie John G. Bailey (Unknown) Chavez (Unknown) Bottax (Unknown) Washington
See O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 616-17 . 5 Moreover, we are required to dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal sua sponte if the case "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chris O'neill, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Harland Embree, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee
We are required to dismiss "an appeal sua sponte at any time if the case ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." See Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam). 3 Because "[t]he Constitution 'does not mandate comfortable prisons[,]' " we conclude that O'Neill's allegations that the conditions of his confinement violated the Eighth Amendment fail to state a claim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph M. Ayuyu v. Claudio R. Suyat, Chairman and Members of the Hawaii Paroling Authority
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. Farcass
Consequently, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that section 1915(e)(2) "raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf." Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mitchell v. Farcass
(2×)
Consequently, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that section 1915(e)(2) "raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf." Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle
Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 274-76 , 114 S.Ct. at 1502 ; Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that a statute that “merely affects the ability of prisoners to maintain appeals in forma pauperis” does not raise retroactivity concerns).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodgers v. Deboe
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Affect of Marks v. Solcum Defendants argue that this Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 496 (9th Cir. 1996), which holds that section 1915(e)(2)’s sua sponte dismissal provisions may be applied to civil actions filed prior to enactment of the PLRA because they embody a “procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns.” Id.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sosaia Havea v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
ANALYSIS 17 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 18 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 20 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 22 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 23 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Marie Minichino v. Ruben Gutierrez, et al.
ANALYSIS 9 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 10 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 11 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 12 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 14 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain s…
discussed
Cited "see"
Jevarien Z. Dunlap v. Bay Area Rapid Transit
ANALYSIS 4 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 5 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 6 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 7 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 9 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 10 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statem…
discussed
Cited "see"
Erika Nicole Cofer v. Brenda Gayle Martin, et al.
ANALYSIS 22 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 23 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 24 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 25 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 27 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Justin Carter v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
ANALYSIS 7 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 8 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 9 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 10 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 12 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Afifi v. McLaughlin & Sanchez LLP
ANALYSIS 13 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 14 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 15 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 16 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 17 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 18 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greene v. City of San Francisco
ANALYSIS 15 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 16 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 17 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 18 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 19 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 20 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 21 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Yakub v. Qatar Airways Group (Q.C.S.C)
ANALYSIS 7 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 8 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 9 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 10 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 12 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armstrong v. Bellridge Apartments
SCREENING/REVIEW PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915 23 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted 24 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims 25 which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be 26 granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996); see also 28 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 …
discussed
Cited "see"
Uribe v. Ponce
ANALYSIS 8 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 9 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 10 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 11 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 12 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 13 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 14 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain st…
discussed
Cited "see"
Risby v. Hawley
ANALYSIS 16 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 17 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 18 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 19 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 20 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 21 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Filho v. Mercy Housing California XVII, LP
ANALYSIS 7 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 8 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 9 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 10 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 12 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 13 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain sta…
discussed
Cited "see"
Collins v. County of Alameda
ANALYSIS 6 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 7 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 8 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 9 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 11 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 12 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain stat…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cook v. State of Tennessee
ANALYSIS 13 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 14 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 15 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 16 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 17 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 18 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 19 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Ralon v. Kaiser Permanente Hospital
ANALYSIS 9 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 10 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 11 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) 12 are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 14 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 15 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain s…
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. Carmax
ANALYSIS 14 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 15 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 16 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 17 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 18 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 19 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff generally must make “a short …
discussed
Cited "see"
Bonazza v. MUFG Bank, Ltd.
Because the Hawaii court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and 15 conducted only a limited review of the complaint addressing whether venue in that court was 16 proper, this Court must conduct a review of the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine 17 whether it contains claims that (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which 18 relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 19 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 20 As stated in the Hawaii court�…
discussed
Cited "see"
Quintell v. Tomko
ANALYSIS 12 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 13 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 14 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 15 (1)are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 16 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 17 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain s…
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. UCSF Medical Center
ANALYSIS 12 A. Legal Standard for Review Under § 1915 13 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 14 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 15 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 16 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 17 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quintell v. Tomko
ANALYSIS 12 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 13 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 14 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 15 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 16 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 17 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Quintell v. Tomko
ANALYSIS 10 A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) 11 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 12 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: 13 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 15 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). 16 To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain …
discussed
Cited "see"
Drevaleva v. Hayo
ANALYSIS 10 A. Legal Standard 11 Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1) and is granted leave 12 to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) 13 are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek 14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see 15 Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Norman v. The White House
No. 19.) 25 DISCUSSION 26 When a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in 27 screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on 1 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7702, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,713 Chester Marks
v.
Geri Solcum Terri Solcum
v.
Geri Solcum Terri Solcum
96-15877.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 18, 1996.
98 F.3d 494
96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7702
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27219
1996 WL 598258
Chester Marks, Florence, Arizona, pro se for plaintiff-appellant., No appearance for the defendants-appel-lees.
Beezer, Kozinski, Kleinfeld.
Cited by 107 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
On April 26, 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“the Act”), Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, was signed into law. A provision of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as amended), applies to prisoner proceedings in forma pauperis and requires us to dismiss an appeal sua sponte at any time if the case is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. This appeal requires us to determine whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to appeals pending in this court on the date of its enactment. We conclude that it does.
I
On January 9,1996, Arizona state prisoner Chester Marks filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Pima County Jail Director of Nurses Geri Solcum and Nurse Terri Solcum. Marks alleged that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with his contact lens solution kit for a week. The district court sua sponte dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Marks filed his notice of appeal on April 25, 1996, one day before the effective date of the Act. The district court granted him leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
II
We apply the analysis set forth in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), in determining whether new section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases.
We first consider “whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Id, at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. In the absence of an express command by Con[*496] gress, we determine, as to each provision of a statute, whether it has retroactive effect. Id.
The Act does not specify whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases. Because Congress did not prescribe the reach of section 1915(e)(2), we consider whether the provision has an impermissible retroactive effect.
A statute has an impermissible retroactive effect if it would impair substantive rights a party possessed at the time it acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Id. By contrast, “[c]hanges in procedural rules may often be applied in suits arising before their enactment without raising concerns about retroactivity.” Id., at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1502.
Because section 1915(e)(2) does not impair any substantive rights of prisoners, but instead merely affects the ability of prisoners to maintain appeals in forma pauperis, we conclude that section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf. See id. We hold that section 1915(e)(2) applies to all appeals pending on or after April 26,1996, regardless of when the complaint or notice of appeal was filed.
Ill
Because section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending appeals, we apply the provision in this case. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Marks must have averred that the defendants’ “acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because Marks’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to section 1915(e)(2).
DISMISSED.