U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 123— FEES AND COSTS

28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Screening

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Screening.—The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.(b)Grounds for Dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.(c)Definition.—As used in this section, the term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.(Added Pub. L. 104–134, title I, § 101[(a)] [title VIII, § 805(a)], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–75; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104–140, § 1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41,568 cases (28,576 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Burroughs v. Mitchell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Burroughs v. Mitchell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 249 (N.D.N.Y. 2018). · cites it 22× “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, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 11× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A prison is no ordinary gated community.”
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “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, 224 F. Supp. 3d 154 (D. Conn. 2016). · cites it 14× “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, 531 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “; 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 Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “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, 48 F. Supp. 3d 394 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 21× “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, 356 F. Supp. 3d 222 (N.D.N.Y. 2019). · cites it 18× “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, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). · cites it 4× “28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “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, 654 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 6× “§ 1997e(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.”
Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “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.”
Show all 41,568 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1) — 5 cases
Wells v. State of New York Dep't of Corr. (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
High v. Lucas (D.S.D. 2020).
Manning v. Kaufman Constables Off. (N.D. Tex. 2023).
(PC) Browning v. Fitzpatrick (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Smith v. Merrill, et al. (D.N.H. 1997).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1)(a) — 1 case
Thomas v. Jackson (INMATE 2) (M.D. Ala. 2023).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(1)(b) — 1 case
Stewart v. Brunson (INMATE 2) (M.D. Ala. 2021).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(A) — 2 cases
Ontiveros v. Dominguez (N.D. Cal. 2020).
Flores v. Murphy (N.D. Cal. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B) — 9 cases
Horne v. Chick (M.D. Fla. 2020).
Alston v. Lawson (D.S.C. 2024).
Trevino v. State of Texas (N.D. Tex. 2020).
Ward v. State of Texas (N.D. Tex. 2021).
Alexander v. Castro (N.D. Tex. 2021).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B)(1) — 6 cases
Nelson v. Salmonsen (D. Mont. 2022).
Walker v. State of Montana (D. Mont. 2023).
Archer v. Supreme Court of the State of Montana (D. Mont. 2023).
In Re Steven Gene Johnson (D. Mont. 2024).
Archer v. Supreme Court of the State of Montana (D. Mont. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) — 12876 cases
Adam Keith Waldman v. Alabama Prison Comm'r, 871 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2017).
Charles Byrd v. Phoenix Police Dep't, 885 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 2018).
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A prison is no ordinary gated community.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
Michael Fuqua v. Charles Ryan, 890 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2018).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(1) — 1 case
Young v. Dotson (W.D. Va. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(2) — 2 cases
Harrison v. Plymouth Cnty. Sheriff Dep't (D. Mass. 2022).
Samuel v. Tullish (D. Mass. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(3) — 1 case
McPhee v. Laino (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(B)(1) — 1 case
Robert Saunders v. Bethany Hall-Long (3rd Cir. 2021).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(b) — 3 cases
Washington v. Stormer (N.D. Ohio 2023).
Williams v. Harcha (N.D. Ohio 2023).
Chambers v. United States (N.D. Ohio 2024).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)(c) — 1 case
Biddle v. Plummer-long (S.D. Ind. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) — 11659 cases
Burroughs v. Mitchell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 249 (N.D.N.Y. 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, 48 F. Supp. 3d 394 (N.D.N.Y. 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, 356 F. Supp. 3d 222 (N.D.N.Y. 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, 138 F. Supp. 3d 182 (N.D.N.Y. 2015).
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) — 8971 cases
Green v. Martin, 224 F. Supp. 3d 154 (D. Conn. 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.”
Rickey Christmas v. Lieutenant J. Nabors, 76 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. 2023).
Daniel Schillinger v. Josh Kiley, 954 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2020).
Jason Lee Harris v. J. Kenneth Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017).
Quintez Talley v. John E. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275 (3rd Cir. 2021).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)(2) — 64 cases
(PC) Ontiveros v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
Gonzalez v. Laxalt (D. Nev. 2019).
Ellis v. Clark Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. (D. Nev. 2019).
Fuller v. Clark Cnty. (D. Nev. 2020).
Choate v. Weidick (D. Nev. 2020).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)(B) — 1 case
Dwight Cook v. United States (4th Cir. 2019).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) — 304 cases
Daniel Chavez v. David Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2016).
Fletcher Small v. Officer Brock, 963 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2020).
Dawn Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Nicholson v. Lenczewski, 356 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D. Conn. 2005).
Kendrick Story v. Maxcie Foote, 782 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2015).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(I) — 1 case
Dozier-Carter v. Bet Holdings Inc. (D.D.C. 2009).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(Z) — 2 cases
Hardin v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 667 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
Phelps v. Ashcroft, 79 F. App'x 606 (4th Cir. 2003).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(i) — 14 cases
Frederick Smith, Jr. v. State of Delaware, 624 F. App'x 788 (3rd Cir. 2015).
Longyear v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 68 F. App'x 878 (10th Cir. 2003).
Petit-Frere v. U.S. Attorney's Off. for the S.D., 664 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2009).
Bradley v. Gray, 78 F. App'x 84 (10th Cir. 2003).
Mourning v. Brown (D.D.C. 2023).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(ii) — 2 cases
Jackson v. Gill, 92 F. App'x 171 (6th Cir. 2004).
Jackson v. Gill, 70 F. App'x 249 (6th Cir. 2003).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) — 651 cases
Owens v. Armstrong, 171 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D.N.J. 2016).
Nicholson v. Lenczewski, 356 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D. Conn. 2005).
Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2016).
Wayne LaFountain v. Shirlee Harry, 716 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 2013).
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). “28 U. S. C. § 1915A; 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a).”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b6)(1) — 1 case
Warfield v. South Dakota Dep't of Corr. (D.S.D. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c) — 423 cases
Jackson v. N.P. Dodge Realty Co., 173 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Neb. 2001).
Richard A. Kalinowski v. Mike Bond & Jennifer Wilson, 358 F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2004).
Lyncoln Danglar v. State of Georgia, 50 F.4th 54 (11th Cir. 2022).
Michael Bohannan v. Wesley Griffin, 527 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2013).
Thinh Minh Luong v. Hatt, 979 F. Supp. 481 (N.D. Tex. 1997).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e) — 9 cases
Olivas v. Nevada Ex Rel. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 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.”
Michael Bohannan v. Wesley Griffin, 527 F. App'x 283 (5th Cir. 2013).
Sammy Pendleton v. Linda Sanders, 565 F. App'x 584 (8th Cir. 2014).
Rigsby v. Oklahoma State of (W.D. Okla. 2021).
Diaz v. Donahue (W.D.N.Y. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2) — 3 cases
Robert Harvey, III v. Alexander Daniels, Officer, Forsyth Police Dep't, 625 F. App'x 499 (11th Cir. 2015).
Spearman v. Parson (E.D. Mich. 2020).
Farley v. Leeb (4th Cir. 1998).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B) — 9 cases
Johnson v. Witcher (W.D. Ark. 2023).
Grant v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (E.D. Wis. 2019).
Williams, Warren v. Seltzner (W.D. Wis. 2022).
Lor, Ari v. Auto Select (W.D. Wis. 2022).
Gardner, John v. Harvard Univ. (W.D. Wis. 2023).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(i) — 1 case
Blowe v. City of Norfolk (4th Cir. 1998).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case
Sweet v. N. Neck Reg'l Jail, 857 F. Supp. 2d 595 (E.D. Va. 2012).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(e)(2)(B)(iii) — 1 case
Capuano v. N.Y.S.S.C.R.S.C. (E.D.N.Y 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.