Scanlon v. State of Vermont

Second Circuit

Scanlon v. State of Vermont

423 F. App'x 78

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2011

Docket10-4766-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 423 F. App'x 78 (Scanlon v. State of Vermont) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scanlon v. State of Vermont, 423 F. App'x 78 (2d Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant John J. Scanlon, Jr. (“Scanlon”), pro se, appeals from an Opinion and Order of the United States District *79 Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, J.), entered November 10, 2010, sua sponte dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e) de novo, bearing in mind that, under § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous. Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact — i.e., where it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or presents “factual contentions [which] are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. Indeed, Scanlon’s brief, constituting several pages of the complaint filed in the district court below, effectively fails to respond to the district court’s decision, as it contains no reference to that decision or identifiable argument. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant John J. Scanlon, Jr. (“Scanlon”), pro se, appeals from an Opinion and Order of the United States District *79 Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, J.), entered November 10, 2010, sua sponte dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e) de novo, bearing in mind that, under § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss an action “at any time” if it determines that the action is frivolous. Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir.2001). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact — i.e., where it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or presents “factual contentions [which] are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. Indeed, Scanlon’s brief, constituting several pages of the complaint filed in the district court below, effectively fails to respond to the district court’s decision, as it contains no reference to that decision or identifiable argument. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.