## Facts

- A California state prisoner filed multiple pro se civil-rights complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at several institutions while proceeding in forma pauperis.
- Three complaints at issue alleged: (1) procedural due process violations tied to administrative segregation and discipline, (2) non-rape conditions-of-confinement and abuse, and (3) repeated drugging and sexual assaults by inmates and prison officials.
- The prisoner alleged he was placed in administrative segregation without written notice of reasons, an opportunity to present evidence, representation by counsel, or written justification, and that he was punished for rule violations before receiving procedural protections.
- He alleged conditions and treatment including sleeping one night without a mattress, lacking a blanket for an unspecified period, being without shoes for a month, and suffering physical and verbal abuse by officials.
- He alleged he was drugged and sexually assaulted more than 28 times across different institutions.
- After service and responsive pleadings in some cases, the district court referred all five actions to a magistrate.
- The magistrate evaluated the claims collectively and recommended dismissal of the three complaints as “frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), relying primarily on the view that the rape allegations were frivolous, and did not separately analyze the other claims.
- The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the three complaints under § 1915(d).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly dismissed the prisoner’s § 1983 complaints as “frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) based largely on a collective assessment of the rape allegations.
2. Whether the district court could dismiss the non-rape due process and conditions-of-confinement claims as frivolous without separate evaluation and without providing notice of deficiencies and an opportunity to amend.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the § 1915(d) dismissal of the rape allegations as frivolous.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the § 1915(d) dismissal of the non-rape due process and conditions-of-confinement claims.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including separate consideration of the non-rape claims and, where appropriate, an explanation of deficiencies and leave to amend.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a court may dismiss an in forma pauperis action as frivolous, but it must distinguish clearly baseless allegations from claims that are merely weak or inartfully pleaded.
- When a pro se complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, the court generally should briefly explain deficiencies and allow amendment.
- Leave to amend may be denied only when it is absolutely clear that the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
- A court abuses its discretion by dismissing an entire action as frivolous without separately evaluating distinct claim categories when some allegations are not plainly frivolous on their face.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court could dismiss the prisoner’s sexual-assault allegations as frivolous under § 1915(d), but it could not dispose of the separate due process and non-rape Eighth Amendment allegations on the same basis without individualized analysis and, absent incurable defects, notice and an opportunity to amend.


Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1988)