From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Gross

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 25, 1993
984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that a case is frivolous for § 1915(d) (now § 1915(e)(B)) when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Smith

Opinion

No. 91-5986. Non-Argument Calendar.

February 25, 1993.

Joseph Carroll, pro se.

Robert W. Butterworth, Fla. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT, EDMONDSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Joseph Carroll filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various members of the Florida State Bar violated his due process rights. Adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court dismissed Carroll's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), district courts have discretion to dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis complaints. Denton v. Hernandez, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 741 (11th Cir. 1987). At any stage of the proceedings, a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) when it appears the plaintiff "has little or no chance of success." Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740; see Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463-66 (1972) (dismissing under section 1915(d) after filing of defensive pleadings and affidavits by all parties), aff'd adopting district court opinion, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973). A district court may conclude a case has little or no chance of success and dismiss the complaint before service of process when it determines from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are "clearly baseless" or that the legal theories are "indisputably meritless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Denton, ___ U.S. at ___-___, 112 S.Ct. at 1733-34. Even if the complaint otherwise states a claim and the alleged facts are not fantastic, the defendant's absolute immunity justifies dismissal before service of process. See Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons and Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n. 2 (11th Cir. 1990).

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), we adopted as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided before October 1, 1981.

Carroll argues dismissal was improper because defendants violated his constitutional rights and were entitled to no immunity. But the district court determined from the complaint that defendants were acting as agents of the Florida Supreme Court. See Florida Bar Rules 3-3.1, 3-7.3 (West Supp. 1992). As such, defendants were entitled to absolute immunity. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1266 (5th Cir.) (members of state bar grievance committee immune from suit because they acted as arm of state supreme court), modified on other grounds, 583 F.2d 779 (1978), overruled in part on other grounds by Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (1979) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); see also Ginger v. Circuit Court, 372 F.2d 621 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 935, 87 S.Ct. 2061, 18 L.Ed.2d 998 (1967); Simons v. Bellinger, 643 F.2d 774, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carroll's action as frivolous.

Carroll also argues the district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint. The record does not show that Carroll ever tried to amend his complaint in district court, although the order of dismissal — which does not state that it was with prejudice — left open that possibility. See Czeremcha v. Intl Ass'n of Mach. Aero. Workers, 724 F.2d 1552, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984). Also, considering the essence of Carroll's complaint, it seems clear that no amendment could avoid the immunity defense for these state bar agents.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Gross

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Feb 25, 1993
984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993)

holding that a case is frivolous for § 1915(d) (now § 1915(e)(B)) when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Smith

holding that a case is frivolous for purposes of § 1915(d), (now § 1915(e)(B)), when it appears that a plaintiff has "little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union

holding complaint is frivolous when it "has little or no chance of success" or "legal theories are indisputably meritless"

Summary of this case from Williams, Scott & Assoc. v. Yates

holding complaint is frivolous when it "has little or no chance of success" or "legal theories are indisputably meritless"

Summary of this case from Williams v. United States

holding that a case is frivolous for IFP purposes if, at any stage of the proceedings, it appears the plaintiff "has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Hines v. Roberts

holding that a claim is frivolous when it has little or no chance of success

Summary of this case from McClain v. Atlanta Pub. Sch.

finding an action frivolous when the district court concludes that it has "little or no chance of success," because, based on the face of the complaint, the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or the factual allegations are "clearly baseless,"—that is, the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"

Summary of this case from Speight v. Monroe Cnty. Jail

finding an action frivolous when the district court concludes that it has "little or no chance of success," because, based on the face of the complaint, the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or the factual allegations are "clearly baseless,"—that is, the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Maiben

finding an action frivolous when the district court concludes that it has "little or no chance of success," because, based on the face of the complaint, the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or the factual allegations are "clearly baseless,"—that is, the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"

Summary of this case from Dickinson v. Granade

finding an action frivolous when the district court concludes that it has "little or no chance of success," because, based on the face of the complaint, the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or the factual allegations are "clearly baseless,"—that is, the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Alphabet Inc.

finding an action frivolous when the district court concludes that it has "little or no chance of success," because, based on the face of the complaint, the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," or the factual allegations are "clearly baseless,"—that is, the complaint "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact"

Summary of this case from Cosby v. Alabama

affirming dismissal of § 1983 action against agents of Florida Bar on basis of absolute immunity

Summary of this case from Kivisto v. Soifer

affirming the district court's dismissal of § 1983 action against Florida state bar officials charged with violating plaintiff's right to due process

Summary of this case from McFarland v. Folsom

stating that a claim is frivolous "when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Nezbeda v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp.

noting "a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Moorer v. Vinson

discussing § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(B)

Summary of this case from Terry v. Roberson

discussing § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(B)

Summary of this case from Reaves v. Presley

noting "a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Pace v. Jack Links Snacks, Inc.

noting that a case is frivolous when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success

Summary of this case from Nichols v. Nichols

discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), subsequently recodified as 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B) (i.e., a claim that "is frivolous or malicious")

Summary of this case from Stone v. Stone

noting that a case is frivolous for when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success

Summary of this case from Abram v. United States

noting "a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from Escoffery v. Equitable Ascent Fin., LLC

noting "a case is frivolous for section 1915(d) [now 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] when it appears the plaintiff has little or no chance of success"

Summary of this case from McKenna v. Obama

stating that a case is frivolous when it appears that the plaintiff has little or no chance of success, i.e., when the complaint on its face relies on legal theories that are indisputably meritless

Summary of this case from Abram v. Marsh

establishing that a claims is frivolous when it appears "from the face of the complaint that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless

Summary of this case from Braxton v. Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs
Case details for

Carroll v. Gross

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH CARROLL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PAUL A. GROSS, SR., BETTE ELLEN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Feb 25, 1993

Citations

984 F.2d 392 (11th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Schmidt v. Fla. First Dist. Court of Appeal

A complaint is frivolous under section 1915(e) "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."…

U.S. v. Westberry

An issue is frivolous when it appears that "the legal theories are indisputably meritless." See Carroll v.…