Summary

Thurgood Marshall Neitzke v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

To the extent that a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim lacks even an arguable basis in law, Rule 12 (b) (6) and § 1915 (d) both counsel dismissal. [7] But the considerable common ground between these standards does not mean that the one invariably encompasses the other. When a complaint raises an arguable question of law which the district court ultimately finds is correctly resolved against the plaintiff, dismissal on Rule 12 (b) (6) grounds is appropriate, but dismissal on the basis of frivolousness is not.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Neitzke v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

Nothing in Rule 12 (b) (6) confines its sweep to claims of law which are obviously insupportable. On the contrary, if as a matter of law "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations," Hishon, supra, 467 U.S., at 73, 104 S.Ct., at 2232, a claim must be dismissed, without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one. What Rule 12 (b) (6) does not countenance are dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Neitzke v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

By logical extension, a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. As the Courts of Appeals have recognized, § 1915 (d) 's term "frivolous," when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature