34
Opinion of the Court
is "entitled to weight"). In reviewing a § 1915(d) dismissal for abuse of discretion, it would be appropriate for the Court of Appeals to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiff was proceeding pro se, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520-521 (1972); whether the court inappropriately resolved genuine issues of disputed fact, see supra, at 32-33; whether the court applied erroneous legal conclusions, see Boag, 454 U. S., at 365, n.; whether the court has provided a statement explaining the dismissal that facilitates "intelligent appellate review," ibid.; and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
With respect to this last factor: Because a § 1915(d) dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather an exercise of the court's discretion under the in forma pauperis statute, the dismissal does not prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations. It could, however, have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in forma pauperis petitions. See, e. g., Bryant v. Civiletti, 214 U. S. App. D. C. 109, 110-111, 663 F. 2d 286, 287-288, n. 1 (1981) (§ 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness is res judicata); Warren v. McCall, 709 F. 2d 1183, 1186, and n. 7 (CA7 1983) (same); cf. Rogers v. Bruntrager, 841 F. 2d 853, 855 (CA8 1988) (noting that application of res judicata principles after § 1915(d) dismissal can be "somewhat problematical"). Therefore, if it appears that frivolous factual allegations could be remedied through more specific pleading, a court of appeals reviewing a § 1915(d) disposition should consider whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice or without leave to amend. Because it is not properly before us, we express no opinion on the Ninth Circuit rule, applied below, that a pro se litigant bringing suit in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome any deficiency unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defect. E. g., Potter v. McCall, 433 F. 2d 1087, 1088 (1970); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446 (1987).
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007