Harry Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Division

This appeal confronts us with a trial court’s efforts to expedite the disposition of numerous complaints filed by a prisoner, pro se. We must determine whether the district court erred in dismissing on its own motion before issuance of summonses thirty-three of Franklin’s pro se complaints for which Franklin paid the filing fees. 1 We hold that the dismissal of actions on the court’s own motion before issuance of summonses is proper only when it is clear that the court lacks jurisdiction. We, therefore, reverse the dismissal of eleven of Franklin’s actions over which the court did not clearly lack jurisdiction. We reach this conclusion even though, after issuance of summonses and upon proper motion, the trial court might dismiss these actions for failure to state a claim.

FACTS

Franklin, an Oregon state prisoner representing himself, filed these thirty-three actions from July 1979 to March 1980. 2 After the district court denied Franklin in forma pauperis status, Franklin paid the filing fees for all his complaints. The magistrate reviewed twenty-nine of Franklin’s complaints and made findings and recommendations. Franklin was given an opportunity to amend twenty-seven…

Concurring:

I concur in Judge Boochever’s opinion.

I write to underscore the fact that this case does not involve complaints filed in forma pauperis. The alleged action underlying such complaints, when frivolous or malicious, can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). Without regard to the scope of this power, it may well be that with respect to such complaints the line dividing those complaints in which jurisdiction is clearly lacking from those in which it is not so lacking will be different than that applicable to complaints in which filing fees are paid. Any such difference would arise because the ease with which complaints in forma pauperis can be filed makes it desirable that there exist a means, other than that provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), by which the district courts can avoid being inundated by complaints springing from the pen of an imaginative prisoner or other writer unrestrained by financial considerations.

I also write to indicate that the line between jurisdiction-lacking complaints and those that fail to state a claim is very often not at all bright. To illustrate, were I acting alone I very likely would permit the *1349 dismissal without the issuance of…

662 F.2d 1337 Harry FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, STATE WELFARE DIVISION, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 80-3306 to 80-3338. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 9, 1981. Decided Dec. 7, 1981. John S. Ransom, Ransom, Rogers & Blackman, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant. Virginia L. Linder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., argued, for defendants-appellees; J. Scott McAlister, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before SNEED and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and CRAIG, * District Judge. BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge: 1 This appeal confronts us with a trial court's efforts to expedite the disposition of numerous complaints filed by a prisoner, pro se. We must determine whether the district court erred in dismissing on its own motion before issuance of summonses thirty-three of Franklin's pro se complaints for which Franklin paid the filing fees. 1 We hold that the dismissal of actions on the court's own motion before issuance of summonses is proper only when it is clear that the court lacks jurisdiction. We, therefore, reverse the dismissal of eleven…