Carter v. U.S., 83-2280
| Citation | 733 F.2d 735 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2280,83-2280 |
| Parties | Albert H. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Albert H. Carter, pro se.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BARRETT and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
This three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Circuit R. 10(e). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241.
In the district court appellant sought to challenge a 1962 federal conviction for perjury rendered in the Middle District of Georgia, for which the sentence has been fully served, on the grounds it was constitutionally invalid. Appellant also challenged a 1977 mandatory injunction issued against him by the Southern District of Texas which imposed six restraints on his right to file lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country.
The federal magistrate dismissed the action and recommended that the district judge to whom the case was assigned consider an order prohibiting appellant from filing any complaints or petitions without counsel and payment of all court costs. The district judge adopted the recommendations of the magistrate including a directive prohibiting appellant from filing any further complaints or petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado without payment of all filing fees.
Appellant's challenge to the federal perjury conviction is without merit because he fails to satisfy the "in custody" requirements which are a prerequisite to federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255; see also United States v. Condit, 621 F.2d 1096 (10th Cir.1980).
Similarly, the challenge to the mandatory injunction is meritless. Appellant is not now nor has he ever been "in custody" in the sense contemplated by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. Furthermore, the district court is without jurisdiction to afford relief from a mandatory injunction issued from a federal district court sitting in another circuit.
The final issue concerns the district court's requirement that appellant be prohibited from filing any further complaints or petitions in the district of Colorado without payment of all filing fees. Such a restriction, in effect, purports to absolutely restrict appellant's ability to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court. The question is whether such a restriction impinges upon appellant's constitutional and/or statutory right of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a).
In In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 786 (D.C.Cir.1981), the appellate court was presented with a similar restriction for review. In that case the court concluded that a determination as to whether to allow one to proceed in forma pauperis must be made separately in every case. The court said:
The determination of a court whether to allow one to proceed in forma pauperis must be made separately in every case. A district court cannot read out of Sec. 1915(a) the discretion Congress placed with the district courts in any "suit, action or proceeding." Although a reviewing court will seldom if ever dictate to the district court the manner in which the latter must exercise its discretion, it can and must compel the court to exercise it. See Steffler v. United States, 319 U.S. 38, 63 S.Ct. 948, 87 L.Ed. 488 [1197] (1943). Thus, any order that does not allow a district court the appropriate exercise of discretion under Sec. 1915 is invalid. We therefore hold that the district court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procup v. Strickland
...Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 807, 88 L.Ed.2d 782 (1986); Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 735 (10th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 915, 83 L.Ed.2d 928 (1985). When Congress wrote 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1915(a)......
-
Richmond v. Wampanoag Tribal Court Cases
...to afford relief from a mandatory injunction issued from a federal district court sitting in another circuit. See Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 735, 736 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1161, 105 S.Ct. 915, 83 L.Ed.2d 928 (1985). And while "[h]istorically, it has been within the ......
-
Jordan v. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles
...fees, including: Abdullah v. Gatto, 773 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1985); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir.1984); Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 735 (10th Cir.1984) (noting also that such orders improperly disallow district courts from appropriately exercising their statutory discretion ......
-
Roche v. Adkins, 92-3321
...denied, 454 U.S. 1151 (1982); and (4) to pay damages for delay caused by an appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1912, Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 735, 737 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1161 (1985). The purpose of fee and costs awards under the statutes relied upon in the foregoin......