Neitzke v. Williams
- Decided
- May 1, 1989
- Docket
- 87-1882
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 22,300 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, superseded on other grounds, abrogated on other grounds, overruled on other grounds, abrogated, abrogated in part (8 of 535 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Leo Olguin v. J. Gastelo
What later courts said
- holding that "a complaint ... is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” — Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales (2008)
- holding that a complaint filed pro se is not automatically frivolous within the meaning of Sec. 1915(d) because it fails to state a claim — Michael R. Goland v. United States of America, and Federal Election Commission, Intervenor-Appellee (1990)
- holding that a claim “is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact” — In Re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Securities Lit. (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is automatically frivolous within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d). The answer, we hold, is no.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.