Green v. Carlson, 00049-045
Decision Date | 17 June 1981 |
Docket Number | S,No. 00049-045,No. 81-1265,00049-045,81-1265 |
Citation | 649 F.2d 285 |
Parties | Reverend Clovis Carl GREEN, Jr.,egregation Unit, Federal Correctional Institution, Box 1000, Anthony, New Mexico, 88021, Petitioner, v. Norman A. CARLSON, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., andU. S. Parole Commission, Washington, D.C., and Floyd Arnold, Warden, FederalCorrectional Institution, Box 1000, Anthony, New Mexico, 88021, Respondents. . Unit A |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Clovis C. Green, Jr., pro se.
Edward Charles Prado, Interim U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for respondents.
Order on Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Etc.
Before GEE, RUBIN and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.
Clovis Carl Green, Jr., brings to us yet another congeries of pro se motions demanding special treatment, instant action, mandamus, habeas corpus, etc. Green, the instigator of hundreds of frivolous and malicious pro se actions, 1 is the subject of a recent order of this court, filed April 27, 1981, and appended at the foot. The motions before us, filed April 20, are not controlled by that order.
(April 27, 1981)
Before AINSWORTH, GARZA and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
This Court has considered petitioner's various motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, expedited appeal, appointment of counsel, consolidation, writs of mandamus, and other motions.
Petitioner has a lengthy history of filing numerous suits in various courts throughout the country. See, e. g., Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758, 759-68 (W.D. Mo. 1979) ( ). These courts have recognized that petitioner has repeatedly abused the judicial process and some have barred further filings by him. See, e. g., Green v. White, 616 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir. 1980); In re Green, 598 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1979); In re Green, No. 80-1039 (D.C. Cir., Aug. 29, 1980) ( ); Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976).
No one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial process. Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975). Flagrant abuse of the judicial process can enable one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants. See Camper, 477 F.Supp. at 770-71.
The same pattern of malicious and frivolous filings is now apparent in this Circuit. Recognizing the need to curtail further frivolous and malicious filings, this Court will invoke its general supervisory power to control its docket.
IT IS ORDERED that the above-numbered cases be consolidated, transferred to the general docket, and submitted to a panel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that although petitioner has not complied with Fed.R.App. Pro. 21(a) or 21(d), this Court will accept only one copy of each petition for the purpose of this consolidated appeal only, and will accept petitioner's proof of service by mail.
IT APPEARING to this Court that all of the petitions either are frivolous, malicious, or repetitive, not taken in good faith, or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a strong showing of necessity for issuing writs of mandamus;
IT...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin v. State of Or.
... ... Cf. Green v. Camper, 477 F.Supp. 758, 759 (W.D.Mo.1979) ("Petitioner is of the apparent mind that by ... See, e.g., Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1087, 102 S.Ct. 646, 70 L.Ed.2d 623 (1981); ... ...
-
Procup v. Strickland
... ... Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231-32 (9th Cir.1984) (criminal); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 786 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam) (criminal) ... I have no quarrel ... 6 In re Green, No. 81-1186 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 27, 1981) (appendix to Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 286 (5th Cir. Unit A), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1087, 102 S.Ct. 646, 70 L.Ed.2d 623 ... ...
-
Green v. Warden, U.S. Penitentiary
... ... abuse of the legal system. See In re Green, supra; Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.1981); Green v. White, 616 F.2d 1054 (8th Cir.1980); Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D.Mo.1976). 3 ... ...
-
Adepegba v. Hammons
... ... See Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 419 (10th Cir.1996) (holding that PLRA lacks the kind of "unambiguous ... after numerous dismissals. See, e.g., Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir.) (per curiam) (court enjoined petitioner, who had filed over 500 ... ...
-
You're Out!: Three Strikes Against the Plra's Three Strikes Rule
...v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405-06 (1974) (emphasis added). 106. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).107. See Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1981) (granting an exception to the ban on the prisoner proceeding IFP when he "specifically allege[s] constitutional deprivation b......