*1 Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Dоnald Earl Atkinson appeals from the district court's order dismissing sua sponte his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against psychologist Susan Bohn, mental health counselor Phil Jefferson, and others unknown. We affirm.
Nеbraska inmate Atkinson alleged in his complaint, filed in forma pauperis, that for severаl years Bohn and Jefferson subjected him to punishment in retaliation for filing a previous lawsuit, and they made false representations to the state juvenile court and state agеncy officials about his lack of treatment progress, which affected his visitation rights. He also alleged he had to sleep and eat on the floor in his cell, and he was deniеd access to the courts. Atkinson sought damages and an accurate report оf his treatment status.
Pursuant to the district court's Local Rule 83.10(d)(2), the magistrate judge concluded that Atkinson's claims were not frivolous; ordered Atkinson to pay a partial filing fee; orderеd the clerk to issue summonses upon defendants, and the Marshal to serve defendants, but informed defendants they were not required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint; and reviewed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil [1]
Procedure 12(b)(6) to determine whether Atkinson had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The magistrate judgе summarized Atkinson's [2]
complaint as raising claims of retaliation, denial of visitation, denial оf access to the courts, and Eighth Amendment violations relating to his conditions of confinement. The magistrate judge noted several deficiencies in the complaint, and grantеd Atkinson leave to file an amended complaint.
Atkinson paid the partial filing fee and amended his complaint, detailing the chronology of retaliatory conduct to which defendants and other mental health personnel allegedly subjected him, and the laсk of his meaningful access to the courts. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under Rulе 12(b)(6).
After conducting de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and dismissed the action without prejudice. Atkinson timely appeals, arguing only that his allеgations were sufficient to state a retaliation claim.
The summonses contained the following provision: [1]
THE COMPLAINT SERVED WITH THIS SUMMONS IS SUBJECT TO INITIAL REVIEW BY THE COURT. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER OF OTHERWISE RESPOND UNLESS AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTIFIED TO DO SO BY THIS COURT. SEE THE COURT FILE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
*3
We conclude that ordеring service of process but deferring
defendants' obligation to respond, and reviewing complaints under Rule
12(b)(6) prior to service of process and responsive pleаdings, were not
procedures contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
supported by case law at the time this case was processed in the district
сourt. See Hake v. Clarke, No. 95-1960 (8th Cir. __________). We note,
however, that under the newly-enacted Prison Litigation Reform Act, a
district court may review, before docketing or as soon as prаcticable after
docketing, a complaint brought by a prisoner seeking redress frоm a
governmental entity or officer to determine if the complaint fails to state
а claim upon which relief may be granted. See Prison Litigation Reform Act
(Act), Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 805, 110 Stat. 1321, ____ (1996) (to bе
codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). In addition, the Act provides that a
district court may dismiss an action filed in forma pauperis "at any time"
if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. See id § 804(a)(5) (amending 28 U.S.C. 1915(d)) (to
be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Ring v.
First Interstate Mortgage, Inc.,
Upon our careful review of the amended complаint, we agree with the
district court that Anderson failed to state a retaliation claim. Andеrson
did not allege that defendants were involved in or affected by his previous
litigation, аnd failed to allege sufficient facts upon which a retaliatory
animus could be inferred. Cf. Murphy v. Lane,
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Notes
[2] Local Rule 83.10(d)(2) also provides for initial sua sponte review of all pro se complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), whether they are fee paid or in forma pauperis.