Do the sua sponte dismissals by the lower courts under the in forma pauperis statute 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B), in which the reviewing court merely substituted the 'frivolous' subsection (ii) for the 'failure to state a claim' subsection (i), directly conflict with this Court's precedents regarding the merging of the 'failure to state a claim' and 'frivolous' standards?

Questions Presented This petition stems from a complaint against local law enforcement, in which The City of Stuart Police, et al. refused to respond to the Petitioners’ report of the theft of a medical implement, knowingly and maliciously putting a single mother and her child at constant and imminent risk of their lives. | Petitioners filed the complaint pro se and in forma pauperis. The U.S. District Court of Southern Florida dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (i) as “failing to state a claim”, with no explanation as to | the deficiencies of the pleadings, no invitation to amend, and before the Defendants had been served with the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, likewise dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B), but differed from the lower court by resorting to subsection (ii) (a “frivolous” complaint) as an excuse to keep Petitioners out of court. Mirroring the attitude of the lower District Court, the Court of Appeals provided no explanation as to the deficiencies of the pleadings, provided no opportunity to amend, and did not serve the Defendants. The court told Petitioners that if they could pay the fees, their complaint would magically become non-“frivolous”. In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), this Court held that a complaint filed in forma pauperis which “fails to state a claim” is NOT automatically “frivolous”. This Court further held that dismissing a case sua sponte by the merging of these two standards denies indigent plaintiffs the rights afforded by the nation’s adversarial system j of justice. This Court's rulings in additional cases cited in this Petition further support and provide definition to the Neitzke v. Williams ruling. It follows then, that the Questions Presented are these: 1. Do the sua sponte dismissals by the lower courts under the in forma pauperis statute 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B), in which the reviewing court merely substituted the “frivolous” subsection (ii) for the “failure to state a claim” subsection (i), directly conflict with this Court’s precedents regarding the merging of the “failure to state a claim” and “frivolous” standards? 2. Do sua sponte dismissals of in forma pauperis and pro se complaints bar meaningful access to the justice system to the most vulnerable members of society and defy | ) Congress’ alleged intent in enacting the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B), to afford indigent individuals equal access to justice? | | | ii Il. Introduction Arguments for barring zn forma pauperis plaintiffs more easily than paying plaintiffs from the courtroom invariably include the faulty reasoning that in forma pauperis plaintiffs file lawsuits simply because they do not suffer economic or time constraints in doing so. For the most vulnerable members of society, impoverished single mothers and their children, nothing could be further from the truth. While a paying litigant might have to refrain from buying a larger house or upgrading to the latest phone model in order to pay court fees, present Petitioners have to sacrifice meals, medicine and : other essentials merely to pay for ink, paper and postage in defense of their lives. While a paying litigant might have to meet with his lawyer during lunch breaks or refrain from going out to dinner or attending a social event with his spouse, the inarguably necessarily neglected child of a persecuted single mother receives even less care and attention than otherwise while his mother tries to give herself a self-help legal education and write her own briefs. This Court addressed the issue of dismissing in forma pauperis complaints in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) and in the other cases cited in this Petition. In | present case, the decisions below directly conflict with the precedents set by this Court and with Congress’ intent to provide equal access to justice through 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B). , iii