772 F.2d 907 (6th Cir. 1985), 85-3244, Kimsey v. Gora

Docket Nº:85-3244
Citation:772 F.2d 907
Party Name:JAMES R. KIMSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FELIX J. GORA; H.K. RUSSELL; RITA KOONTZ; MR. HUSSMAN; LIBRARIAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
Case Date:August 01, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 907

772 F.2d 907 (6th Cir. 1985)

JAMES R. KIMSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

FELIX J. GORA; H.K. RUSSELL; RITA KOONTZ; MR. HUSSMAN; LIBRARIAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

No. 85-3244

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

August 1, 1985

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

S.D.Ohio

AFFIRMED

ORDER

BEFORE: KENNEDY, JONES and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the Court upon the appellant's motion for counsel. The appeal has been referred to a panel of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the record, the motion, and appellant's informal brief, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

James R. Kimsey is appealing the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He is contending his right of access to the courts has been violated. The district court dismissed the case on the basis of the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

The appellant is serving a thirteen to twenty-five year sentence in an Ohio prison for involuntary manslaughter. He had pled no contest to the charge. Kimsey took a direct appeal to the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals where he was represented by counsel and had a brief filed on his behalf. While the appeal was pending, Kimsey expressed his desire to file a supplemental brief and requested a transcript of the state trial court proceedings. The Ohio appellate court, through state court administrator Gora, sent the only transcript of the case to the appellant with the provision that the transcript be returned and brief filed on October 29, 1984. Appellee Russell, superintendent of the prison, returned the transcript to the court on October 19, 1984. Russell noted that the appellant had viewed the transcript on September 28, 1984 and October 18, 1984. Kimsey claims that his right of access to the courts has been violated because the transcript was sent back to the appellate court prematurely. He requested that the defendants be enjoined against violating state court orders in the future. He also wanted compensation and punitive damages awarded to stop the disregard of court orders. Finally, he...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP