*1 CALIFORNIA, DENTON, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS OF v. HERNANDEZ a l. et No. Argued February 24, 1992 90-1846. 4, 1992 May Decided *2 O’Connor, J., Court, Rehnquist, opinion delivered of which White, Souter, Thomas, JJ., J., Scalia, Kennedy, joined. C. and and Stevens, J., Blackmun, J., joined, dissenting opinion, filed a in which post, p. 35. Ching, Supervising Deputy Attorney of

James General argued petitioners. him California, the cause for With on Lungren, Attorney General, the briefs were Daniel E. George Attorney General, Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney Young, and Joan General, Kenneth C. Assistant Attorney Cavanagh, Supervising Deputy W. General. Nichols, Richard W. Court, of the appointment the cause argued filed a brief for respondent.* Justice delivered O’Connor of the opinion Court. The federal statute, codified at 28 U. S. C. allows indigent to commence a litigant civil or criminal action in federal court without the admin- paying istrative costs proceeding the lawsuit. The statute abuses this protects against a dis- privilege by allowing trict court dismiss the case “if the allegation poverty or if untrue, satisfied that the action is frivolous or ma- Williams, Neitzke licious.” 490 U. S. 319 (1989), we considered the standard to be when deter- *3 applied pauperis of an in forma whether mining the basis legal under The issues in this case are the appropriate for when inquiry determining in factual litigant’s allegations a justify forma 1915(d) dismissal for frivolousness, and the standard proper review of appellate such a dismissal.

HH Petitioners are 15 officials at various in institutions the California Between 1983 and penal system. 1985, respond- pro se, ent Hernandez, Mike a state prisoner proceeding named in petitioners defendants five civil suits filed rights pauperis. in In relevant the in part, complaints these five suits that Hernandez was allege and ho- drugged mosexually a total of 28 times raped inmates and by prison * Starr, Mueller, Solicitor General Attorney Assistant General and Deputy Solicitor General Roberts a filed brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. John A Alexander, Fathi, Powell, Elizabeth David C. R. Steven Sha- piro, and Matthew Coles filed brief for the American Civil Liberties amici curiae Union et al. as urging affirmance. exceptions,

officials at different institutions.* fewWith the alleged perpetrators complaints, are not identified be any cause Hernandez does not claim direct recollection of the he Rather, incidents. asserts that he found needle marks on parts body, different of his and fecal and semen stains on his drugged clothes, which him that he led to believe had been raped slept. and while he sexually

Hernandez’s that he was assaulted on nights January January 13, 1984, 27, 1984, are supported by signed by prisoner an affidavit fellow Armando Esquer Affidavit), (Esquer which states: January approximately 13, 1984,

“On 7:30 I a.m., my way was on shower, when I saw correctional McIntyre, officer the P-2 Unit unlock inmate Officer, subsequently Mike Hernandez’s cell door and saw as two stepped black inmates his I inside cell. did not see Of- McIntyre ficer order black these two inmates out of in- they stepped mate Mike Hernandez’s cell after inside, though asleep even inmate Mike Hernandez was inside. After about ten I returned minutes, shower, from the my being and I noticed friend, Hernandez, Mike was sex- ually assaulted the two black Officer inmates. Mcln- Ylst, Hernandez Complaint al., *See Amended et No. CIV S-83- (Feb. 1984) (alleging rape by unidentified correctional officers at *4 29, 1982), California night July State Prison at Folsom on the Brief for Denton, 2-4; Respondent in Hernandez v. Complaint Motion to Amend et (June al., 19,1984) No. CIV (alleging rape by pris S-83-1348 one or more Facility July 29, oners at California Medical night at Vacaville on the 1983, episode 1983), and Respondent one additional in December Brief for Ylst, 5; Complaint Hernandez v. al., (Aug. 20, et No. CIV S-84-1074 1984) (alleging druggings rapes six occurring additional and between Au gust 4, 1983), 6; in Her Respondent Complaint and November Brief for Ylst, 1984) nandez al., v. (Sept. 17, (alleging et No. CIV S-84-1198 three occurring additional incidents between November 26 and December Ylst, 1983), 6-7; in Hernandez v. Respondent al., Brief for Complaint et (Jan. 21,1985) (alleging No. CIV S-85-0084 16 additional incidents occur ring January 10, 1984), Respondent between 13 and December Brief for 7.

tyre returned to lock inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell door stepped after the watch[ed] two black inmates out. I activity hallway my all this from the cell door. January again

“On my way 27th, 1984,1 was on to the shower, when I noticed the same correctional officer as he unlocked inmate Mike Hernandez’s cell door, and also stepped saw as two black inmates inside inmate Mike right away Hernandez’s cell. Then I knew that both they McIntyre up good. and Officer were to no After this last incident, I became convinced that Officer McIn- tyre deliberately unlocking my was friend, Mike Her- [lay] asleep, nandez’s cell as he so that these two black sexually inmates could assault him in his cell.” Exhibit H in No. CIV Respondent S-85-0084, Brief for 9. attempted Hernandez also to amend one to include signed by an affidavit alleging fellow inmate Pierce, Harold night July that on the 29, 1983,he “witnessed inmate Du shane B-71187and rape inmate Milliard B-30802assault and lay inmate asleep Mike Hernandez as he . . . in bed 206 in the N-2 Unit Dorm.” See Exhibit G to Motion to Amend Complaint in Hernandez Denton, et al., No. CIV S-83- (June 1984), Respondent Brief for 6.

The District Court determined that the five cases were related Magistrate, and referred them to a who recom- complaints mended that the be dismissed as frivolous. The “ Magistrate complaint, reasoned separately, ‘each taken ” “ necessarily is not picture frivolous,’ but that ‘a different emerges reading complaints from a together.’” of all five “ explained: Id., at alleges ‘[Hernandez] 11. As he that both guards subjected and inmates, institutions, different him Despite to sexual assaults. the fact that different defend- allegedly responsible ants are purported for each assault, the operandi every modus is identical in case. Moreover, the only sporadically throughout attacks year occurred a three period. appear “wholly The facts thus to be fanciful” and justify this court’s dismissal of the actions as frivolous.’”

30 By May Ibid. order dated 5, 1986, the District Court adopted Magistrate the recommendation of the and dis- complaints. missed the appealed

Hernandez the dismissal of three of the five cases (Nos. S-83-0645, S-83-1348, CIV CIV CIV see S-85-0084; supra). Reviewing n. 1, novo, the dismissal de the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Her- (1988). part, Denton, nandez v. 2d 1421 F. In relevant Judge opinion Schroeder’s lead concluded that a district factually court only could dismiss a if allegations judicially conflicted with facts, noticeable “‘capable ready is, facts of accurate and determination accuracy reasonably ques- resort to sources whose cannot be 201). (quoting Id., tioned.’” at 1426 Fed. Rule Evid. Judge this case, wrote, Schroeder the court could not dismiss impossible Hernandez’s claims as frivolous because it was to judicial alleged rapes take notice that none of the occurred. Judge ground 2d, F. at 1426. Wallace concurred on the precedent required given that Circuit that Hernandez be no- tice that his claims were to be dismissed as frivolous and a complaints remedy chance to amend his the deficiencies. Judge Id., at opin- 1427. Aldisert dissented. He was of the ion that the were “the hallucinations of a troubled man,” id., and that no further amendment could save complaint, id., at 1439-1440. granted petitioners’ petition

We first for a writ of certio (1989), rari, judgment, 493 U. S. 801 vacated the and re Appeals manded the case to the Court of for consideration intervening of our decision in Neitzke Williams, 490 (1989). Appeals On remand, the Court reaffirmed its (1991). Judge earlier decision. F. 2d 1374 Schroeder original opinion judicial modified her to state that notice was just determining “one useful standard” for factual frivolous §1916(d), ness position under but adhered to her that the judicially case could not be dismissed because no noticeable fact rape. could contradict Hernandez’s claims of Id., at *6 1376. Judge Wallace Aldisert Judge repeated their ear- lier views.

We granted the second for petition a writ of certiorari to pauperis consider when an claim bemay dismissed informa as factually frivolous 1915(d). § under (1991). U. S. 937 We hold that the Court of Appeals incorrectly limited the power granted the courts to dismiss frivolous case under § 1915(d), and therefore vacate and remand the case for appli- cation of the proper standard.

I I In enacting the pauperis federal statute, Con forma gress “intended to guarantee that no citizen shall be denied an opportunity to commence, prosecute, or defend an action, civil or criminal, in any court of the United States, solely because ... poverty it makes impossible ... to or pay secure the costs” of litigation. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nem ours Co.,& (1948) (internal U. S. 331, 342 quotation omitted). marks At the same time that it to sought lower judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress that recognized “a litigant whose fees filing and court costs are assumed the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, mali supra, or cious, repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke, at 324. In response to this concern, Congress included (d) subsection part the statute, which allows the courts to dismiss an pauperis “if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.”

Neitzke supra, v. Williams, us provided our first oc- to casion construe meaning 1915(d). “frivolous” under case, held we that “a complaint, as it containing does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is it where lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Id., at 325. In Neitzke, were we concerned with the proper standard for determining frivolousness legal conclusions, and we determined that a pauperis complaint filed informa

which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Pro 12(b)(6)may cedure arguable nonetheless have “an basis in precluding law” dismissal under 490 S.,U. at 328- holding, 329. In so we observed that the informa 12(b)(6), judges statute, only unlike Rule “accords not authority indisputably to dismiss a claim based on an merit- legal theory, less power pierce but also the unusual complaint’s veil of the factual and dismiss those *7 clearly claims whose factual contentions are Id., baseless.” “Examples at 327. of the latter class,” we said, “are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with judges which federal district are all too familiar.” Id., at 328.

Petitioners contend that the decision below is inconsist- power ent with recognized the “unusual” dismissal we in agree. Contrary Neitzke, and we to the Ninth Circuit’s assumption, 1915(d) our gives statement in Neitzke that authority “pierce courts the complaint’s to the veil of the allegations” factual means that a court is not bound, as it usually making is when solely a determination based on the pleadings, accept question to plain- without the truth of the allegations. reject tiff’s We therefore the notion that a accept “having arguable court must basis in fact,” id., allegations at 325, all that judicially cannot be rebutted noticeable At facts. the respect same time, order to congressional goal “assuring] equality of consideration for litigants,” Coppedge all States, United 438, (1962), this initial assessment plain- of the informa tiff’s weighted factual must be in favor of the plaintiff. 1915(d) In other words, frivolousness deter- frequently sponte mination, made sua before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot serve as a factfinding process disputed for the resolution of facts. may

As we stated Neitzke, a court dismiss a claim as factually only alleged if the “clearly facts are base- category less,” 490 S.,U. at encompassing allegations 327, a id., “fanciful,” that are at 325, “fantastic,” id., at suggest, finding “delusional,” ibid. As those words of fac- appropriate alleged tual frivolousness is when the facts rise wholly to the level of the irrational or the incredible, whether judicially or not there are noticeable facts available to con- pauperis complaint may tradict them. An in not simply be dismissed, however, because the court finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely. improbable allegations Some might properly disposed summary judgment, be of on but to any development dismiss them as frivolous without factual disregard age-old insight many allegations might “strange, always strange, Stranger be but true; for truth is Byron, than fiction.” Lord Don Juan, XIV, canto stanza 101 (T. 1977). Steffan, Steffan, E. & W. Pratt eds.

Although urges “clearly Hernandez that we define the guidepost baseless” precision, with more we are confident that the district courts, who are “all too familiar” with factu- ally supra, frivolous claims, Neitzke, are in the best position category. to determine which cases fall into this In- may deed, the statute’s instruction that an action be dis- *8 missed if the court is “satisfied” that it is frivolous indicates that frivolousness is a decision entrusted to the discretion of entertaining pauperis petition. the court the in We forma “clearly therefore decline the invitation to reduce the base- inquiry less” to a monolithic standard. discretionary

Because the frivolousness determination is a 1915(d) § we properly one, further hold that a dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion, and that it was Appeals error for the Court of to review the dismissal of Boag MacDougall, Hernandez’s claims de novo. Cf. v. 454 (1982) curiam) (per (reversing 364, 365, n. dismissal of pauperis petition when dismissal was based on informa legal an erroneous conclusion and not exercise of the “broad § granted by 1915(d)); Coppedge, supra, discretion” at 446 (district pauperis appel- court’s certification that in forma § taking appeal good 1915(a), required by lant is faith, 34 1915(d) § weight”). reviewing dismissal “entitled to a appropriate

for it for the discretion, abuse of would be Court among things, Appeals whether the consider, other plaintiff proceeding pro se, Kerner, Haines v. 404 was see (1972); inappropriately U. 520-521 whether the court S. disputed supra, genuine 32-33; see at fact, resolved issues of legal applied see conclusions, whether the court erroneous provided Boag, the court has a S., 365, n.; 454 U. whether explaining facilitates “intelli- statement the dismissal that gent appellate ibid.; the dismissal was review,” and whether prejudice. with or without 1915(d) § respect Because a dis

With to this last factor: rather an merits, missal is not a dismissal on the but exercise pauperis statute, of the court’s discretion under the informa filing paid complaint prejudice a the dismissal does not making allegations. could, however, the same It have a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future in Bryant pauperis petitions. g., Civiletti, e. v. See, App. 109, 110-111, 286, 287-288, U. (1981) (§ 1915(d) 2d n. S. D. C. F. judicata); is res

dismissal for frivolousness (CA7 1983) McCall, 1183, 1186, Warren v. 709 F. 2d and n. 7 (CA8 (same); Rogers Bruntrager, 2d cf. 841 F. 1988) (noting application judicata principles of res 1915(d) problematical”). after dismissal can be “somewhat appears Therefore, if it that frivolous factual through specific pleading, could be remedied a more court 1915(d) appeals reviewing disposition should consider by dismissing whether the district court abused its discretion prejudice or without leave to amend. properly express opinion Because it is not before we no us, applied pro litigant on the rule, below, Ninth Circuit that a se bringing suit is entitled to notice and an informa *9 opportunity any to amend the to overcome defi ciency unless it is clear that no can amendment cure de g., (1970); McCall, fect. E. Potter v. 2d 1087, 433 F. 1088 (1987). Carlson, Noll v. 2dF.

Accordingly, judgment we vacate the below and remand consistent, proceedings opinion. the case for with this

It is so ordered. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.

My disagreement agree with the is Court narrow. I applied its articulation of determining the standard to be pauperis complaint whether an in is frivolous under precedent supports U. S. C. Moreover, Court’s expressing any decision to remand the case without proper application view on the of that standard to the facts g., of the case. e. County See, v. Inmates Rufo of Suffolk (1992). Jail, 502 U. S. 367 Nevertheless, because I am satis- fied that Appeals entirely decision of the Court con- sistent today, with the standard announced I would affirm judgment. its