28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Screening
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41,568
cases (28,576 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Burroughs v. Mitchell
Burroughs v. Mitchell (2018)
“2 Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion…”
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan (2014)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A prison is no ordinary gated community.”
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections (2017)
“The district court treated the lawsuit as one brought by a prisoner and thus applied the screening procedures established by § 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing the Complaint pursuant to those procedures.”
Green v. Martin (2016)
“This Ruling begins with, and consists principally of, the Court’s sua sponte re *160 view of Green’s pleadings, a review mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I. INITIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 28 U.”
O'NEAL v. Price (2008)
“; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. [4] In practice (as occurred in Schelage and CSP ), the district court may style its disposition of complaints dismissed for a reason specified in § 1915A as a denial of a prisoner's application to file the action without prepayment of the filing…”
Michael Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center (2017)
“IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER SUMMARY** Prisoner Civil Rights The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and remanded in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.”
Banks v. Annucci (2014)
“Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” and must “identify cognizable claipis or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of…”
Rasheen v. Adner (2019)
“1 Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion…”
Jones v. Bock (2007)
“28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
Cesal v. Moats (2017)
“At the screening phase, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court identified two claims in Cesal’s pro se complaint: an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim regarding his back treatment, and a First Amendment retaliation claim related to the withholding of insulin.”
Bingham v. Thomas (2011)
“§ 1997e(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.”
Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio (2015)
“The district court, after denying Perez’s request for pro bono counsel, screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it sua sponte, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1) — 5 cases
High v. Lucas (2020)
(PC) Browning v. Fitzpatrick (2025)
Smith v. Merrill, et al. (1997)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1)(a) — 1 case
Thomas v. Jackson (INMATE 2) (2023)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1)(b) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(A) — 2 cases
Ontiveros v. Dominguez (2020)
Flores v. Murphy (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B) — 9 cases
Horne v. Chick (2020)
Alston v. Lawson (2024)
Trevino v. State of Texas (2020)
Ward v. State of Texas (2021)
Alexander v. Castro (2021)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B)(1) — 6 cases
Nelson v. Salmonsen (2022)
Walker v. State of Montana (2023)
In Re Steven Gene Johnson (2024)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) — 12876 cases
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan (2014)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A prison is no ordinary gated community.”
Jones v. Bock (2007)
“28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(1) — 1 case
Young v. Dotson (2025)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(2) — 2 cases
Samuel v. Tullish (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(3) — 1 case
McPhee v. Laino (2024)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(B)(1) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(b) — 3 cases
Washington v. Stormer (2023)
Williams v. Harcha (2023)
Chambers v. United States (2024)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(c) — 1 case
BIDDLE v. PLUMMER-LONG (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) — 11659 cases
Burroughs v. Mitchell (2018)
“2 Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion…”
Banks v. Annucci (2014)
“Likewise, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity” and must “identify cognizable claipis or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of…”
Rasheen v. Adner (2019)
“1 Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion…”
Burroughs v. Petrone (2015)
Grinter v. Knight (2008)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) — 8971 cases
Green v. Martin (2016)
“This Ruling begins with, and consists principally of, the Court’s sua sponte re *160 view of Green’s pleadings, a review mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I. INITIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 28 U.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)(2) — 64 cases
Gonzalez v. Laxalt (2019)
Fuller v. Clark County (2020)
Choate v. Weidick (2020)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
Dwight Cook v. United States (2019)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) — 304 cases
Dawn Ball v. Famiglio (2013)
Nicholson v. Lenczewski (2005)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(I) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(Z) — 2 cases
Hardin v. United States (2015)
Phelps v. Ashcroft (2003)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(i) — 14 cases
Bradley v. Gray (2003)
Mourning v. Brown (2023)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(ii) — 2 cases
Jackson v. Gill (2004)
Jackson v. Gill (2003)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) — 651 cases
Owens v. Armstrong (2016)
Nicholson v. Lenczewski (2005)
Felton v. City of Chicago (2016)
Jones v. Bock (2007)
“28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b6)(1) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c) — 423 cases
Thinh Minh Luong v. Hatt (1997)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e) — 9 cases
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Department of Corrections (2017)
“The district court treated the lawsuit as one brought by a prisoner and thus applied the screening procedures established by § 1915A of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing the Complaint pursuant to those procedures.”
Rigsby v. Oklahoma State of (2021)
Diaz v. Donahue (2025)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) — 3 cases
Spearman v. Parson (2020)
Farley v. Leeb (1998)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B) — 9 cases
Johnson v. Witcher (2023)
Williams, Warren v. Seltzner (2022)
Lor, Ari v. Auto Select (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(i) — 1 case
Blowe v. City of Norfolk (1998)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(iii) — 1 case
Capuano v. N.Y.S.S.C.R.S.C. (2025)
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.