Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2d 924
This court reviews a district court's dismissal of an IFP complaint for abuse of
discretion. Clark v. State of Georgia Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639
(11th Cir.1990). Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), the district court may dismiss
an IFP action if it is "frivolous or malicious." This circuit has defined a
frivolous appeal under section 1915(d) as being one " 'without arguable merit.'
" Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir.1987)1 (quoting Watson v.
Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). " 'Arguable means capable of being
convincingly argued.' " Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th
Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740 n. 5); see Clark,
915 F.2d at 639 ("A lawsuit [under section 1915(d) ] is frivolous if the
'plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.' " (quoting Moreland,
899 F.2d at 1170)). In deciding whether an IFP appeal is frivolous, a district
court determines whether there is "a factual and legal basis, of constitutional
dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded." Watson, 525
F.2d at 892; Menendez, 817 F.2d at 739. Additionally, this court has held that a
district court's "authority to dismiss a complaint as frivolous under section
1915(d) is broader than dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12." Menendez, 817 F.2d
at 739-40.
3
All of the alleged derogatory remarks by Judge Forrester occurred while he was
conducting Sun's sentencing proceedings. A judge is absolutely immune from
suit in performing his judicial responsibilities. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24,
27-29, 101 S.Ct. 183, 186-87, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Menendez, 817 F.2d at
741. Therefore, Sun's action against Judge Forrester is completely without a
legal basis, and the district court properly dismissed this case prior to service of
process. Menendez, 817 F.2d at 742.
Although
the instant suit is groundless, it is not, however, without useful purpose. It
6
provides the court with an opportunity to demonstrate the futility of pressing
spurious claims upon a judicial system already overtaxed by serious business.
7....
8
This complaint is totally lacking in merit and is nothing more than the vitriolic
diatribe of a disgruntled litigant against the judge who heard his case. As such,
its only potentially useful feature might be to discourage other malcontents from
instituting similar meritless actions.
McCord v. Polozola, 555 F.Supp. 996, 998, 999 (M.D.La.1983) (Parker, C.J.).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.