Melvin Anderson v. R H Rison ( 1996 )

___________
No. 95-2479
___________
Melvin Anderson, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
R.H. Rison, Warden, USMCFP, *
Springfield, MO; S.D. Paciorek; * [UNPUBLISHED]
G. Klingingner, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: July 16, 1996
Filed: July 26, 1996
___________
Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Melvin Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district
court's order denying Anderson leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and
dismissing without prejudice his complaint alleging violations of his civil
rights in this Bivens1 action. We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
Anderson alleged that federal prison officials and physicians
unlawfully detained him in the United States Medical Center for Federal
Prisoners at Springfield (USMCFP), placed him in a seclusion stripped cell
for four days which was lighted twenty-four hours a day and had a video
camera, and placed him in a four-point restraint, seized blood, and force-
fed him without his consent for
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
the purpose of punishing him and murdering him. As part of an initial
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the magistrate judge ordered defendants
to show cause why leave to proceed IFP should be denied.
In response, defendants submitted affidavits from a USMCFP staff
attorney and physician attesting to the circumstances under which Anderson
was transferred, placed in a seclusion cell, force-fed, and restrained for
the purpose of administering medical tests. The district court concluded
Anderson's claims were frivolous, denied him leave to proceed IFP, and
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
We conclude that the district court acted improperly when it ordered
defendants to show cause why IFP status should be denied, and then
considered (and credited) documentary evidence and affidavits submitted in
response, to determine whether Anderson's claims were frivolous. A
decision to grant leave to proceed IFP is to be decided initially on the
basis of the complaint; if the complaint is frivolous, it should be
dismissed out of hand. Gentile v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections & Human
Resources, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). If the complaint is not
frivolous or malicious, IFP status should be granted, and process issued
and served. Id. The complaint did not contain "claim[s] based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory" or present "claims whose factual
contentions [were] clearly baseless." Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
327 (8th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in
denying Anderson leave to proceed IFP, and dismissing without prejudice
Anderson's complaint. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)
(standard of review). In light of our disposition of this appeal,
Anderson's motion for production of documents is moot.
-2-
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-3-