Duhart v. Carlson
Citation | 469 F.2d 471 |
Decision Date | 11 October 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1666.,71-1666. |
Parties | Paul X. DUHART et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norman A. CARLSON, Director of Prisons, John N. Mitchell, as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Bruce D. Pringle, Denver, Colorado, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John J. Immel, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Robert J. Roth, U. S. Atty., and Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, HILL and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The above-named appellants brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the above-named appellees as a class action.
The appellants filed an application under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915 for authorization to prosecute the action without prepayment of fees and costs. In an affidavit supporting their application, the appellants averred that they were American citizens; that because of poverty they were unable to pay the costs of such action; and that they believed that they were lawfully entitled to the redress which they sought in the action.
The District Court of the District of Columbia granted the application. Thereafter, on the motion of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
In their complaint, the appellants alleged:
That the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331; 1391(e); 1343(1), (2), (4); 1651(a); 2284(2), (3); 2201; 2202; and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
That they were prisoners incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas; that they were black prisoners; that they had been unconstitutionally discriminated against by the prison officials of such penitentiary and by members of the staff of the penitentiary, because of their race and religion (Islam); and that they had been denied the rights of peaceable assembly and of freedom of speech.
Appellants further alleged:
That the appellees, as Director of the Bureau of Prisons of the United States and as Attorney General of the United States, had conspired with Robert I. Moseley, warden of such penitentiary, and the members of his staff to deny the "blacks" their rights of "freedom of expression and black programs and right of Muslims to practice their religion."
The appellants sought relief by declaratory judgment, mandamus, and injunction.
Section 1915(a), (d), and (e), in part here material, reads:
It is preferable procedure for a federal district court to authorize the commencement and prosecution of an action without the prepayment of costs, if the requirements of § 1915(a) are satisfied on the face of the papers submitted, and if the court thereafter discovers that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if it is satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious, then to dismiss the action.1 Under such a procedure, a complete record can be made in an orderly fashion, for the benefit of both the district court and the court of appeals if an appeal is taken. That procedure was followed in the instant case.
In their answer to the complaint, appellees admitted that the appellants were "presently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas." They denied each of the other allegations of the complaint.
Coupled with the answer, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that it was frivolous and malicious, and set up that appellants had brought many complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in which they made the same allegations and asked for similar relief, and gave the titles and numbers of seven of such cases.
The court dismissed the action, on the ground that it was frivolous and malicious. In a memorandum filed with the order of dismissal, the court said:
A court may take judicial notice of its own records.2 And it has authority to consult its own records for the purpose of determining whether an action being prosecuted in forma pauperis, notwithstanding the application so to do and the supporting affidavit are regular and sufficient on their face, is in fact frivolous and malicious,3 and it may dismiss the action if it finds it is frivolous and malicious.4
The appellants did not in the lower court and do not here challenge the court's findings that their action was frivolous and malicious. Hence, we accept them as true.
By its judgment, the court ordered and adjudged "that the * * * motion to dismiss be granted and that this action * * * is hereby dismissed; and * * * that judgment * * * is hereby entered against the plaintiffs and each of them for the costs of this action, execution to issue upon the request of counsel for the defendants."
Appellants contend that § 1915(e) operates to deny indigent plaintiffs their constitutional right to access to the courts of the United States. They argue that:
It will be observed that appellants' attack on the statute is not tied to any specific case, and particularly is not tied to the facts in the instant case. Counsel for appellants argues their case as if it was one brought by an indigent; was not frivolous or malicious, but was one they had a perfect right to prosecute to vindicate and protect their rights, and which was dismissed and the costs assessed against them.
Of course we have no power to decide a hypothetical case.
In the case of United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20, 80 S.Ct. 519, 522, 4 L.Ed.2d 524, the court said:
* * *"
Hence, we must confine our decision to the facts in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holsey v. Bass
...948, 950 (4 Cir. 1979). The Clerk of the Court will be directed to tax costs against Holsey as a nonprevailing party. Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471, 478 (10 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 958, 93 S.Ct. 1431, 35 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973); Perkins v. Cingliano, 296 F.2d 567 (4 Cir. 1961); Mark......
-
Weaver v. Toombs
...for doubt, and completely disposes of the petitioner's contention that costs may not be adjudged against him." Accord, Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471 (10th Cir.1972); Pasquarella v. Santos, 416 F.2d 436 (1st Cir.1969); Fletcher v. Young, 222 F.2d 222 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 916,......
-
Abdul-Akbar v. Department of Corrections
...Id.; Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 896, 96 S.Ct. 198, 46 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975); Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471 (10th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 958, 93 S.Ct. 1431, 35 L.Ed.2d 692 B. Analyzing Plaintiff's Claims Under § 1915(d) Plaintiff's legal cl......
-
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Desert State Life Mgmt.
...however, take notice of its own files and records, as well as of other facts which are a matter of public record. See Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471, 473 (10th Cir. 1972) ; De Baca v. United States, 403 F.Supp.3d 1098 (D.N.M. 2019) (Browning, J.). The facts that the Judgment supports for p......
-
CHAPTER 8 TRIAL PRESENTATION AND EVIDENCE
...on Proposed Rules, Fed.R.Evid. 201. [18] Fed.R.Evid. 201(f). [19] Fed.R.Civ.P.1 6. [20] Fed.R.Evid. 201(g). [21] Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 958 (1973) (court took judicial notice of its own court records showing dismissal of a class action as fr......