Case Citator › Neitzke v. Williams

Neitzke v. Williams

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
490 U.S. 319
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
1,931 of 1,931
Citing cases (total)
22,303
Treatment dates
2000
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Neitzke v. Williams has been superseded by statute in part: all 1,931 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. The Prison Litigation Reform Act displaced Neitzke's former Section 1915(d) rule that an in forma pauperis complaint could not be dismissed sua sponte merely for failure to state a claim.
More on how this was screened

Later opinions continue to apply Neitzke's surviving definition of frivolousness—lack of an arguable basis in law or fact—or merely report the PLRA and Lopez v. Smith as history. Nearby adverse language otherwise concerned unrelated authorities, claims, arguments, or dispositions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

22,303 later cases cite Neitzke v. Williams; 1,931 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Neitzke v. Williams?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit held that Congress intended PLRA Section 1915(e) to overrule Neitzke's former rule against sua sponte failure-to-state dismissal and to require dismissal of such claims.

    Lopez v. Smith · Ninth Circuit · filed

    The Supreme Court did address the meaning of former section 1915(d) in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989), but that decision does not control the issue here. In Neitzke, the Court held that section 1915(d), which gave courts permission to dismiss sua sponte a frivolous complaint, did not also give courts authority to dismiss sua sponte a complaint for failure to state a claim.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Neitzke v. Williams and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace