Johnson v. Russ, 20-30497

Andre Johnson, a Louisiana prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging retaliation by prison official Edward Russ and others based on false disciplinary complaints after Johnson filed grievances and lawsuits about prison conditions.
The district court sua sponte dismissed Johnson’s complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
Johnson appealed, arguing the district court erred by dismissing his retaliation claims without first allowing him to amend his complaint.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and assessed whether the complaint alleged "fantastic or delusional scenarios" or relied on an "indisputably meritless" legal theory such that leave to amend was unnecessary.
The court concluded Johnson’s retaliation allegations were neither fantastical nor indisputably meritless and that he had not alleged his best case; accordingly, it vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit denied Johnson’s motions for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal in district court and expressed no opinion on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court may sua sponte dismiss Johnson's §1983 retaliation claims with prejudice without first permitting amendment	Johnson: dismissal with prejudice was improper because he should have been given an opportunity to amend to cure pleading defects	Russ: the complaint was frivolous/failed to state a claim; dismissal was appropriate	Court: Vacated and remanded — leave to amend was required because claims were not fantastical or indisputably meritless and Johnson may not have alleged his best case
Whether Johnson's allegations of retaliation were "fantastic, delusional," or based on an indisputably meritless legal theory	Johnson: alleged factual basis (false disciplinary reports tied to prior grievances/lawsuits) supports a retaliation claim	Russ: allegations insufficient and frivolous so no amendment necessary	Court: Allegations, when liberally construed, were plausible and could state a retaliation claim; dismissal without leave was improper

Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005) (de novo review and standards for dismissals of in forma pauperis prisoner suits)
Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2016) (district court ordinarily must give pro se plaintiffs opportunity to amend before dismissing for failure to state a claim)
Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend unnecessary when claims are "fantastic or delusional" or the legal theory is indisputably meritless)
Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2006) (elements and pleading standards for prison retaliation claims)