Carter v. Thomas, 75--1657
| Decision Date | 05 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1657,75--1657 |
| Citation | 527 F.2d 1332 |
| Parties | Albert H. CARTER and Richard E. Chapman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. V. Bailey THOMAS, Clerk, U.S. District Court, etc., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Albert H. Carter and Richard E. Chapman, pro se.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Albert Carter and Richard Chapman brought this class action to challenge the method in which in forma pauperis petitions by inmates are handled by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It is alleged that all in forma pauperis petitions by inmates are referred to United States Magistrates prior to filing or issuance of process, and that the process of review and recommendation by Magistrates in the Southern District takes months and sometimes more than a year to complete. Only after this process is completed may the complaint be filed, process be served, and the lawsuit begun in earnest. Plaintiffs recognize that 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the statute governing in forma pauperis litigation, permits preliminary scrutiny of such petitions, but argue that the substantial differences in treatment of indigent and non-indigent litigants produced by the system in the Southern District renders the statute, as applied, violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.
The District Court, and the Magistrate whose recommendation it accepted, apparently understood the plaintiffs' attack to be a different and broader one. It noted that there is no absolute right to proceed in forma pauperis in the federal courts; that it is left to the discretion of the district court to determine whether a petition is frivolous or lacking in merit; and that the fact that some delay results from the process by which that discretion is exercised does not necessarily render it unconstitutional. It dismissed plaintiffs' action for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
This Court has since strongly reaffirmed those propositions of law. Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886 (5 Cir. 1976). But the fact that some delay is inherent in a process does not provide constitutional immunity for extreme and unreasonable delays. Plaintiffs have alleged instances of twenty-one month intervals between submission of papers to the court and filing of the complaint. We have no way of knowing whether this allegation is true or, if true, whether such delay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Toombs
...of § 1915. The benefit extended under this statute to file suit without prepayment of costs is a privilege, not a right. Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976); Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1969); Williams v. Field, 394 F.2d 329 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 ......
-
Carter v. Telectron, Inc.
...States, 547 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1977), and whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. See Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1976); Carter v. Estelle, 519 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 3 During a March, 1976, hearing before United States Magistrate Ronald J. Blask ......
-
Harris v. Champion
..."reflects a disparity in opportunity of access to the appellate forum that is constitutionally impermissible"); Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332, 1333 (5th Cir.1976) (holding that alleged delays of up to twenty-one months between the submission of motions to proceed in forma pauperis and the......
-
Williams v. Calderon, 93-99006
...before the district court finally denied his petition violated his due process rights. We disagree. Williams relies on Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.1976) for the proposition that long delays in habeas processing may violate due process. We have never decided to follow Carter, se......
-
State Prisoners, Federal Courts, and Playing by the Rules: an Analysis of the Aldisert Committee's Recommended Procedures for Handling Prisoner Civil Rights Cases
...to protect the poor litigant." Duniway, The Poor Man in the Federal Courts, 18 Stan. L. Rev. 1270, 1284 (1966). 103. Carter v. Thomas, 527 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1976). 104. Id. at 1333-34. Nine months later, the district court denied plaintiff Carter's pauper status, and ultimately dismissed ......