Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneystatuteappealpublic defenderprosecutorpiracy
defendantattorneystatuteappealtrialpublic defenderappelleepiracy

Related Cases

Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 282 Cal.Rptr. 627
View Case »
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756, 68 USLW 4069, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 454, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 617, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 308, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 64
View Case »
Long v. United States, 312 A.3d 1247
View Case »
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.4th 807, 171 P.3d 1092, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,234, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,307
View Case »
Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504

Facts

Sidney Marts brought a § 1983 complaint against an assistant district attorney, a public defender, and a private attorney involved in his state court criminal case. The district court dismissed the claims against the public defender and private attorney without prejudice, ruling they were not state actors, and dismissed the claim against the prosecutor based on absolute immunity. The conspiracy claim was also dismissed as frivolous. Marts appealed the dismissals, leading to the Court of Appeals' en banc review.

The facts concerning the appeal by Sidney Marts of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against an assistant district attorney for Orleans Parish, Louisiana, a public defender, and a private attorney representing a codefendant in a state court criminal action, are set forth in the panel opinion.

Issue

Whether dismissals of cases as frivolous or malicious under the in forma pauperis statute should be deemed with prejudice unless the district court specifies otherwise.

On en banc reconsideration, considering the distinct features of such in forma pauperis proceedings, we now hold that dismissals as frivolous or malicious should be deemed to be dismissals with prejudice unless the district court specifically dismisses without prejudice.

Rule

Dismissals under the in forma pauperis statute are generally to be with prejudice unless the district court explicitly states otherwise.

The rule that the in limine dismissals of actions by the district court generally are to be with prejudice particularly fits dismissals under the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now a part of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Analysis

The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's dismissals should be modified to be with prejudice, as the in forma pauperis statute's dismissals are not merely on the merits but serve as denials of in forma pauperis status. The court emphasized the need for clarity in dismissals to prevent confusion in future filings and to conserve judicial resources.

In reaching today's decision we have determined and now hold that in cases involving dismissals as frivolous or malicious under the in forma pauperis statute, in which the defendant has not been served and was, therefore, not before the trial court and is not before the appellate court, the appellate court, notwithstanding, has the authority to change a district court judgment dismissing the claims without prejudice to one dismissing with prejudice, even though there is no cross-appeal by the obviously non-present 'appellee.'

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice, except for the conspiracy claim.

Consistent with today's holding we must now vacate and remand this action to the district court for entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice except as relates to the conspiracy claim and for such further proceedings as may be deemed appropriate.

Who won?

The Court of Appeals, as it modified the district court's dismissals to be with prejudice, thereby favoring the defendants.

The Court of Appeals, as it modified the district court's dismissals to be with prejudice, thereby favoring the defendants.

You must be