Joseph Jackson, II v. State of Arizona (Unknown) Terry, Deputy Acting Warden (Unknown) Avenenti, Deputy Warden

concurring:

I would affirm but Neitzke v. Williams, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1830-31 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) requires the result that we reach.

Upon remand, the district court may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). The result will be the same but Neitzke requires a more restricted standard when the dismissal is based upon frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). As the Supreme Court held in Neitzke :

Neitzke v. Williams, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1829 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

*642 I am compelled therefore, to join the majority.

885 F.2d 639 Joseph JACKSON, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA; (Unknown) Terry, Deputy Acting Warden; (Unknown) Avenenti, Deputy Warden, Defendants-Appellees. No. 88-1550. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1989 * . Decided Sept. 18, 1989. Joseph Jackson, Florence, Ariz., pro se. No appearance for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before FARRIS, THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges. DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Joseph Jackson appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action for damages against the State of Arizona and two prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. BACKGROUND 2 Jackson's complaint alleged that prison officials have violated a wide range of his rights. Jackson also filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), which was granted. 3 As the district court noted, Jackson's complaint is "largely unintelligible." The complaint clearly fails to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Declining to order service of process, the district court sua…

Joseph Jackson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for damages against the State of Arizona and two prison officials. We have jurisdic *640 tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

BACKGROUND

Jackson’s complaint alleged that prison officials have violated a wide range of his rights. Jackson also filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which was granted.

As the district court noted, Jackson’s complaint is “largely unintelligible.” The complaint clearly fails to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Declining to order service of process, the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and with brief instructions on how to correct the complaint’s numerous defects. The court gave Jackson thirty days to amend his complaint. After Jackson failed to amend the complaint within the thirty-day period, the district court dismissed the action and entered judgment against him. Jackson filed a motion to reconsider and some late amendments for the complaint, but the amendments did not cure the deficiencies identified by the district court. The district court…