Conway v. Dunbar
| Citation | 448 F.2d 765 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25347.,25347. |
| Parties | James X. CONWAY, Appellant, v. Walter A. DUNBAR et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
James X. Conway, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Tamal, Cal., for appellees.
Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and POWELL,* District Judge.
The United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, invoking a local rule, dismissed on its own motion this Civil Rights action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to diligently prosecute the same.
Plaintiff, as a state prisoner, was entitled to have the Clerk of the District Court cause summons and complaint to be served. Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1970). But plaintiff did not provide the clerk with copies of his complaint (as amended); after nearly two years passed and plaintiff still had not done so, the district court issued its order to show cause preliminary to dismissal of the action. In response to that order, plaintiff filed an answer which contained allegations to the effect that prison officials and guards had thwarted all his attempts to supply the requisite copies and to communicate with the court. However, the district court, in resolving the issue, was entitled to consider not only its own records, which showed that during the period under consideration plaintiff had commenced numerous actions in the United States District Court, but also to note that he had prosecuted four appeals.1 In this milieu, the order of dismissal did not constitute an abuse of the district court's discretion.2
The judgment is affirmed.
* Honorable Charles L. Powell, United States District Judge, Spokane, Washington, sitting by designation.
1 Conway v. Oliver, 429 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1970), civil rights suit alleging denial of access to the courts; judgment on merits against Conway affirmed on appeal;
Conway v. Fugge, 439 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1971), civil rights suit alleging denial of access to the courts; dismissal of complaint as "frivolous" affirmed on appeal;
Conway v. Slaughter, 440 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir. 1971), civil rights suit alleging denial of access to the courts, religious persecution and physical mistreatment — essentially the same claim as the one involved in the instant appeal; dismissal without prejudice for failure to cite specific acts of mistreatment held on appeal not to constitute final appealable order;
Conway v. Procunier (No. 25295, 9th Cir. 1971), civil rights suit alleging religious persecution returned to District Court following determination on appeal that no final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. James, 82-420-Civ-T-17.
...courts is inapposite of a legitimate claim of denial of access. See, Perry v. Jones, 437 F.2d 759 (5th Cir.1971); Conway v. Dunbar, 448 F.2d 765 (9th Cir.1971); Conway v. Oliver, 429 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.1970); Wilson v. Prasse, 404 F.2d 1380 (3rd Cir.1968) on remand, 325 F.Supp. 9 (1971), af......
-
Holt v. Pitts
...(5th Cir. 1978); Hughley v. Eaton Corp., 572 F.2d 556 (6th Cir. 1978); Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1974); Conway v. Dunbar, 448 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1971); Mayberry v. Robinson, 427 F.Supp. 297 (M.D.Pa.1977). On the other hand, prison inmates must not be denied adequate means o......
-
Hall v. Hall
...who is confined in prison has no right to appear personally. See, e.g., McKinney v. Boyle, 447 F.2d 1091 (CA 9, 1971); Conway v. Dunbar, 448 F.2d 765 (CA 9, 1971). While a prisoner has no right to testify personally or by deposition, fundamental fairness may require that he be given some op......
-
Maurer v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Dept., 87-5979
...Maurer is not entitled, as a matter of right, to appear personally at a hearing in his civil rights action. See Conway v. Dunbar, 448 F.2d 765, 766 n. 2 (9th Cir.1971) (state prisoner is not entitled as a matter of right to appear personally at a hearing in his civil rights action); Potter ......