×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
PLRA IFP Provision Applied Retroactively
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which allows courts to dismiss prisoner suits that have been filed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) at any time if determined to be frivolous, can be applied retroactively to appeals pending at the time the statute was created on April 26, 1996, with the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Chester Marks, an Arizona state prisoner, filed suit claiming violation of his eighth amendment rights after be was not provided with a contact lens solution kit for a week. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Marks filed his appeal notice on April 25, 1996, and was granted IFP status.
The court held that the PLRA's change of the IFP statute did not impair any substantive rights of prisoners but only affected their ability to maintain IFP appeals. "We conclude that Section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994). We hold that Section 1915(e)(2) applies to all appeals pending on or after April 26, 1996, regardless of when the complaint or notice of appeal was filed." The court dismissed Marks' appeal for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See: Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996).
Chester Marks, an Arizona state prisoner, filed suit claiming violation of his eighth amendment rights after be was not provided with a contact lens solution kit for a week. The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Marks filed his appeal notice on April 25, 1996, and was granted IFP status.
The court held that the PLRA's change of the IFP statute did not impair any substantive rights of prisoners but only affected their ability to maintain IFP appeals. "We conclude that Section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994). We hold that Section 1915(e)(2) applies to all appeals pending on or after April 26, 1996, regardless of when the complaint or notice of appeal was filed." The court dismissed Marks' appeal for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See: Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Marks v. Solcum
| Year | 1996 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 1996) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494 (9th Cir. 10/18/1996)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 96-15877
[4] filed: October 18, 1996.
[5] CHESTER MARKS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GERI SOLCUM; TERRI SOLCUM, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-00023-RMB. Richard M. Bilby, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
[7] Chester Marks, Florence, Arizona, pro se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[9] Before: Robert R. Beezer, Alex Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.
[10] Per Curiam:
[11] On April 26, 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("the Act"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, was signed into law. A provision of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as amended), applies to prisoner proceedings in forma pauperis and requires us to dismiss an appeal sua sponte at any time if the case is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. This appeal requires us to determine whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to appeals pending in this court on the date of its enactment. We conclude that it does.
[12] I
[13] On January 9, 1996, Arizona state prisoner Chester Marks filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Pima County Jail Director of Nurses Geri Solcum and Nurse Terri Solcum. Marks alleged that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with his contact lens solution kit for a week. The district court sua sponte dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
[14] Marks filed his notice of appeal on April 25, 1996, one day before the effective date of the Act. The district court granted him leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
[15] II
[16] We apply the analysis set forth in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1994), in determining whether new section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases.
[17] We first consider "whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach." 114 S. Ct. at 1505. In the absence of an express command by Congress, we determine, as to each provision of a statute, whether it has retroactive effect. Id.
[18] The Act does not specify whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases. Because Congress did not prescribe the reach of section 1915(e)(2), we consider whether the provision has an impermissible retroactive effect.
[19] A statute has an impermissible retroactive effect if it would impair substantive rights a party possessed at the time it acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Id. By contrast, "changes in procedural rules may often be applied in suits arising before their enactment without raising concerns about retroactivity." Id. at 1502.
[20] Because section 1915(e)(2) does not impair any substantive rights of prisoners, but instead merely affects the ability of prisoners to maintain appeals in forma pauperis, we conclude that section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf. See id. We hold that section 1915(e)(2) applies to all appeals pending on or after April 26, 1996, regardless of when the complaint or notice of appeal was filed.
[21] III
[22] Because section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending appeals, we apply the provision in this case. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Marks must have averred that the defendants' "acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). Because Marks' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to section 1915(e)(2).
[23] DISMISSED.
[24] Disposition
[25] DISMISSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 96-15877
[4] filed: October 18, 1996.
[5] CHESTER MARKS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
GERI SOLCUM; TERRI SOLCUM, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-96-00023-RMB. Richard M. Bilby, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
[7] Chester Marks, Florence, Arizona, pro se for the plaintiff-appellant.
[8] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[9] Before: Robert R. Beezer, Alex Kozinski and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.
[10] Per Curiam:
[11] On April 26, 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 ("the Act"), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, was signed into law. A provision of the Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as amended), applies to prisoner proceedings in forma pauperis and requires us to dismiss an appeal sua sponte at any time if the case is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. This appeal requires us to determine whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to appeals pending in this court on the date of its enactment. We conclude that it does.
[12] I
[13] On January 9, 1996, Arizona state prisoner Chester Marks filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Pima County Jail Director of Nurses Geri Solcum and Nurse Terri Solcum. Marks alleged that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with his contact lens solution kit for a week. The district court sua sponte dismissed his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
[14] Marks filed his notice of appeal on April 25, 1996, one day before the effective date of the Act. The district court granted him leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
[15] II
[16] We apply the analysis set forth in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1994), in determining whether new section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases.
[17] We first consider "whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach." 114 S. Ct. at 1505. In the absence of an express command by Congress, we determine, as to each provision of a statute, whether it has retroactive effect. Id.
[18] The Act does not specify whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending cases. Because Congress did not prescribe the reach of section 1915(e)(2), we consider whether the provision has an impermissible retroactive effect.
[19] A statute has an impermissible retroactive effect if it would impair substantive rights a party possessed at the time it acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Id. By contrast, "changes in procedural rules may often be applied in suits arising before their enactment without raising concerns about retroactivity." Id. at 1502.
[20] Because section 1915(e)(2) does not impair any substantive rights of prisoners, but instead merely affects the ability of prisoners to maintain appeals in forma pauperis, we conclude that section 1915(e)(2) is a procedural rule which raises no retroactivity concerns under Landgraf. See id. We hold that section 1915(e)(2) applies to all appeals pending on or after April 26, 1996, regardless of when the complaint or notice of appeal was filed.
[21] III
[22] Because section 1915(e)(2) applies to pending appeals, we apply the provision in this case. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Marks must have averred that the defendants' "acts or omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). Because Marks' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to section 1915(e)(2).
[23] DISMISSED.
[24] Disposition
[25] DISMISSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------