Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for lawyers to summarize, comment on and analyze case law published on our website. Justia makes no warranty that the comments are accurate or reflect current legal status, and no comment is intended and should not be construed as legal advice. Contacting Justia or an attorney via this website, via a web form, by email or otherwise does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. What we`re saying is not that Billman should get a break because he lacks legal skills. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 p. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 p.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam). Or that his complaint, like any complaint governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be read generously.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 pp. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Orthmann v Apple River Campground, Inc., 757 F.2d 909, 915 (7th Cir.1985). No plausible reading, however generous, would provide the missing link we have identified. Our point is that because Billman is a prisoner, he may not be able to identify the right defendants or all the accused in his complaint. If he were not a prisoner, but could not reasonably be expected to identify the perpetrators without the aid of a pre-trial discovery, his legal action would not be dismissed. Palmer v. Board of Education, op.
cit. cit., 46 F.3d-688. The particular perversity of imposing high standards of pleading in prisoner cases – a decision of highly dubious accuracy according to Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 p.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) – it is much more difficult for an inmate to write a detailed complaint than for a free person to do so. Again, not because the prisoner does not know the law, but because he is unable to investigate before taking legal action. We consider it the duty of the District Court to assist him, within reasonable limits, in conducting the necessary investigations. The complaint, written by detainee Billman without the assistance of a defence lawyer, lists five defendants.
One is the Indiana Department of Corrections. Three are named; You are the head of this department, the warden of Billman Prison and a unit team leader in the prison. The judge`s error was important and not just technical, if the request was not frivolous; and although the Supreme Court has held that the standard of appellate review of a finding of frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is the “abuse of power” standard, Denton v. Hernandez, supra, 504 U.S. at 34, 112 S.Ct. at 1734, this cannot be understood quite literally. In order to determine that an application is frivolous, the District Court must determine whether it is legally inadequate, a purely legal issue on which the Court of Appeal is considered in plenary session. See, for example, Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 943 F.2d 104, 107 (1. Cir.1991); cf. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287, 102 pp. 1781, 1789, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). Where discretion is given a reasonable view, where – and this is also at issue in this case – the District Court, after finding that the action is legally inadequate, also decides that the action is so frivolous that the plaintiff should be prevented from saving it by amending the claim.
