Huggins v. State

3 Citing cases

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

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

    (Citations omitted).Although a trial court is required to give a liberal construction to pro se civil rights complaints, seeMoore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994), we review a trial court's conclusion that a complaint is frivolous for abuse of discretion. Huggins v. State, 928 So.2d 981, 983 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The power to dismiss a frivolous complaint is distinct from a trial court's authority to dismiss for failure to state a claim under [Mississippi] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6). SeeNeitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

  2. 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

    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." Huggins v. State, 928 So.2d 981, 983 [(¶ 4)] (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (citing Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 679 [(¶ 275)] (Miss. 1997)).

  3. Duncan v. Johnson

    14 So. 3d 760 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times
    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."

    Although a trial court is required to give a liberal construction to pro se civil rights complaints, see Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994), we review a trial court's conclusion that a complaint is frivolous for abuse of discretion. Huggins v. State, 928 So.2d 981, 983 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (citing Dock v. State, 802 So.2d 1051, 1056 (¶ 11) (Miss. 2001)).