Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Duncan v. Johnson

14 So. 3d 760 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Duncan v. Johnson

6 Citing cases

  1. Dunn v. State

    No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 14, 2018)   Cited 51 times

    2008) (discussing Miss. Const. art. 3, § 24). See also Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So. 3d 760, 765 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ("The Mississippi Constitution does not create an unlimited right of access to the courts."). Section 24 protects "a reasonable right of access to the courts—a reasonable opportunity to be heard."

  2. Graves v. Hankins

    294 So. 3d 1249 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Trial courts have the inherent power to dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte, even prior to service of process on the defendant. Duncan v. Johnson , 14 So. 3d 760, 762-63 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). ANALYSIS

  3. Robinson v. Miss. Dep't of Corr.

    230 So. 3d 1064 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)

    ¶ 8. In Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So.3d 760, 762 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009), this Court recognized our trial courts' "inherent authority to dismiss frivolous complaints, sua sponte, even prior to service of process on the defendants." (Citations omitted).

  4. Wilson v. Edwards

    202 So. 3d 275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 13. The trial court is required to give a liberal construction to pro se section 1983 complaints, and we review a trial court's conclusion that a complaint is frivolous for abuse of discretion. Duncan v. Johnson , 14 So.3d 760, 763 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2009). However, “[t]he power to dismiss a frivolous complaint is distinct from a trial court's authority to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).”

  5. Leavitt v. Carter

    178 So. 3d 334 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that "the immunity conferred under the MTCA does not apply to private prisons operated under a contract with the State"

    II. Whether the circuit court erred in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. ¶ 11. “Our trial courts possess an inherent authority to dismiss frivolous complaints, sua sponte, even prior to service of process on the defendants.” Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So.3d 760, 762 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2009). We review such action by the court for abuse of discretion, considering “(1) whether the complaint has a realistic chance of success; (2) whether it presented an arguably sound basis in fact and law; and (3) whether the complainant could prove any set of facts that would warrant relief.”

  6. Clincy v. Atwood

    65 So. 3d 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that the refusal by correctional-facility personnel to allow an inmate to keep his arthritis medication followed standard policies applicable to the medical care of inmates and the possession of medication by inmates

    " Under Mississippi law, "trial courts possess an inherent authority to dismiss frivolous complaints, sua sponte, even prior to service of process on the defendants." Duncan v. Johnson, 14 So.3d 760, 762 [(¶ 4)] (Miss.Ct.App. 2009) [(citation omitted)]. The Mississippi Appellate Courts have applied the following three part test, in determining "whether an in forma pauperis case should proceed or be dismissed as frivolous: 1) does the complaint have a realistic chance of success; 2) does it present an arguably sound basis in fact and law; and 3) can [the complainant] prove any set of facts that would warrant relief."