Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (2026)
Dismissal of claim - Grounds - Factors for determination - Poverty hearings
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A court may dismiss a claim filed by an inmate, either before or after service of process on the defendant, if the court finds that:
- (1) The allegation of poverty in the inmate's affidavit is false; or
- (2) The claim is frivolous or malicious.
- (b) In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious under subsection (a), the court may consider whether or not:
- (1) The claim has a chance of success;
- (2) The claim has a basis in law and in fact; and
- (3) The claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate in that the present claim arises from the same operative facts.
- (c) The court may hold a hearing to determine whether the allegation of poverty filed with the claim is false or whether the claim is frivolous or malicious. This hearing may be held before or after service of process on the defendant and may be held on motion of the court, a party to the claim or by any officer of the court.
- (d) On the filing of a motion described under subsection (c), the court shall suspend all discovery relating to the claim pending the outcome of the hearing.
Acts 1996, ch. 913, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1997–2017 · leading case: Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-21-804(b) sets out the possible grounds for determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious: .”
Blackmon v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 29 S.W.3d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Blackmon’s drug conviction, but dismissed his petition, finding that “the evidence indicates that the hearing officer made several attempts to set a hearing date for the petitioner and the petitioner refused every *877 proposal.”
Grenda Harmer v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016). “Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds Petitioner had not paid court costs in all prior claims, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-812 , and his affidavit of indigency contained “falsities.”
Paul Farnsworth v. Billy Compton (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (a) (1997) (em pha sis added).”
Paul Farnsworth v. Richard Kenya (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Thus, section 41-21-804 required the trial court in this case to suspend all discovery.”
Sweatt v. Bd. of Paroles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “This hearing may be held before or after service of process on the defendant, and may be held on motion of the court, a party to the claim, or by any officer of the court.”
Antonio Sweatt v. Donal Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (1997). Section 41-21-804 sets forth three factors for courts to consider in determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious.”
State of Tennessee v. Jaxie Raymond Jones (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “Regarding the January 5, 2001 order entered in the Criminal Court of Johnson County, we have concluded that the trial court erred insofar as it found the pleadings filed by Appellant to be “frivolous and malicious,” pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-804.…”
Terry Howard v. Jack Morgan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 provides that a court may dismiss a claim filed by an inmate if the court finds that the allegation of poverty in the inmates affidavit is false.”
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” In doing so, the court found, pursuant to T.C.A. § 41-21-804 (1997),1 that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in that the same action – the one filed in the first action – had “previously been considered and dismissed.”
Jabari Mandela v. Jim Rose (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Petitioner sought to proceed in forma pauperis, thereby triggering the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-801 et seq. Tenn.”
Steven Cobb v. Charles Wilson (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (b)(1997). In the present case, defendant’s motion to dismiss was based, in part, upon the claim that Cobb’s complaint had no basis in law and in fact.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(a) — 1 case
Steven Cobb v. Charles Wilson (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (b)(1997). In the present case, defendant’s motion to dismiss was based, in part, upon the claim that Cobb’s complaint had no basis in law and in fact.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(a)(2) — 2 cases
Duffey v. Lee (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Michael Mosby v. Roland Colson (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(b) — 7 cases
Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 88 S.W.3d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 41-21-804(b) sets out the possible grounds for determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious: .”
Blackmon v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles, 29 S.W.3d 875 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Blackmon’s drug conviction, but dismissed his petition, finding that “the evidence indicates that the hearing officer made several attempts to set a hearing date for the petitioner and the petitioner refused every *877 proposal.”
Paul Farnsworth v. Richard Kenya (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Thus, section 41-21-804 required the trial court in this case to suspend all discovery.”
Paul Farnsworth v. Billy Compton (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (a) (1997) (em pha sis added).”
Blackmon v. TN Bd. of Paroles (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(b)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Joe Clark Mitchell (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(b)(3) — 1 case
Mohamed F. Ali v. Howard Carlton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” In doing so, the court found, pursuant to T.C.A. § 41-21-804 (1997),1 that the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in that the same action – the one filed in the first action – had “previously been considered and dismissed.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804(d) — 3 cases
Paul Farnsworth v. Richard Kenya (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Thus, section 41-21-804 required the trial court in this case to suspend all discovery.”
Paul Farnsworth v. Billy Compton (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (a) (1997) (em pha sis added).”
Antonio Sweatt v. Donal Campbell (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-804 (1997). Section 41-21-804 sets forth three factors for courts to consider in determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.