Mehdipour v. State Dept. of Corrections

• Decision Date: 30 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 99,301.,99,301.
• Citation: 2004 OK 19,90 P.3d 546
• Parties: Faramarz MEHDIPOUR, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

90 P.3d 546

2004 OK 19

Faramarz MEHDIPOUR, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants/Appellees.

No. 99,301.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 30, 2004.

Faramarz Mehdipour, Stringtown, OK, pro se.

J. Kevin Behrens, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, For Defendants/Appellees.

KAUGER, J.

¶ 1 We granted certiorari to address the issue of whether inmates who seek to proceed as indigents or paupers, but who are required to prepay filing fees pursuant to 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2¹ if they have filed three or more meritless civil lawsuits are statutorily denied due process or the constitutional right of access to courts guaranteed to all citizens by the Okla. Const. art 2, § 6.² The statute in question provides in pertinent part:

"A. A prisoner who has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, or while on probation or parole, brought an action or appeal in a court of this state or a court of the United States that has been dismissed on the grounds that the case was frivolous, or malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, may not proceed in a matter arising out of a civil case, or upon an original action or on appeal without prepayment of all fees required by law, unless the prisoner is under immediate danger of serious physical injury...."

We hold that the statute does not deprive inmates of the due process right to access to courts.

FACTS

¶ 2 On January 2, 2003, the appellant, Faramarz Mehdipour (Mehdipour), an inmate at the Mack Alford Correctional Facility in Stringtown, Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit in the district court of Atoka County, Oklahoma, against the appellants, the warden, and various employees of the prison and the Department of Corrections (collectively, prison officials). Mehdipour complained of violations of his civil rights, alleging that the prison officials: 1) improperly placed him in a segregation unit; 2) seized his legal materials and personal property; 3) forced him to live with a smoker in the same cell; 4) failed to properly train prison employees; and 5) forced him to work against his will. He did not allege that he was under any immediate danger of serious physical injury. Rather than pay the filing fee in the district court, Mehdipour filed a pauper's affidavit.³

¶ 3 The prison officials filed a motion for summary judgment on March 24, 2003. They argued that, pursuant to 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2,⁴ the cause must be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee because Mehdipour had, on at least three prior occasions, filed lawsuits that had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. The prison officials presented an order filed February 25, 2003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit which dismissed a lawsuit filed by Mehdipour for failing to pay a filing fee after three or more prior meritless cases had been dismissed.⁵

¶ 4 On April 28, 2003, the trial court entered an order granting the prison officials' motion for summary judgment. It found that Mehdipour was incarcerated, he had not paid the filing fee, and he had, on at least three prior occasions, filed actions which had been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. Mehdipour appealed, insisting that he had never filed a frivolous civil action. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. It determined that 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2⁶ applied as a matter of law, and required dismissal, without prejudice to refiling upon the proper payment of the filing fees. We granted certiorari on January 20, 2004, to address the constitutionality of the statute.

TITLE 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2 DOES NOT DEPRIVE INMATES OF THE DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO ACCESS TO COURTS.

¶ 5 Mehdipour argues that a literal construction of 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2,⁷ to require prepayment of fees even though he alleges that he is indigent, violates his right to access to the courts and due process guaranteed by the federal⁸ and state constitutions.⁹ He relies on our recent decision in Mehdipour v. Wise, 2003 OK 3, 65 P.3d 271 in support of his argument. The prison officials contend that the statute in question does not prevent access to courts or deny due process, but merely requires prepayment of a filing fee rather than installment payments, under certain circumstances when an inmate has filed excessive, meritless lawsuits.

¶ 6 There are two sources of the right to access the courts and due process. Oklahoma's Constitution, art 2, § 6 specifically guarantees citizens' access to courts.¹⁰ Although the United States Constitution does not have a specific access to courts provision like the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that indigent inmates have a fundamental constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts, arising from several constitutional provisions.¹¹ However, this right in the civil context, is not absolute or unconditional, except in cases where an indigent litigant has a fundamental interest at stake.¹² Due process is guaranteed by the Okla. Const., art 2, § 7 and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.¹³

¶ 7 The United States Supreme Court has issued orders denying petitioners from proceeding in forma pauperis when seeking extraordinary relief for filing excessive, frivolous and/or abusive petitions in the Court.¹⁴ Similarly, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has also denied in forma pauperis status for future extraordinary relief filings based on past excessive, frivolous, and duplicitous filings.¹⁵ Other courts, relying on their inherent powers have also imposed similar restrictions on litigants who have demonstrated a pattern of excessive filings.¹⁶

¶ 8 This Court has previously determined that § 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution¹⁷ was intended to guarantee that the judiciary would be open and available for the resolution of disputes, but not to guarantee that any particular set of events would result in court-awarded relief.¹⁸ We have also determined that prisoners have a constitutional right to reasonable access to the courts.¹⁹ Last year, in Mehdipour v. Wise, 2003 OK 3, 65 P.3d 271, we recognized that our courts have consistently declined to interpret our statutory provisions in a manner which would deprive prisoners access to civil judicial process.

¶ 9 Wise involved the issue of whether inmates were statutorily deprived of the capacity to file any civil action against a third party which does not involve the asserted violation of constitutional rights.²⁰ In determining that they were not and could not be deprived of such capacity, we also noted that our rulings have long recognized the fundamental policy considerations and constitutional implications which would arise from a holding that prisoners may be deprived of their right to seek protection of the courts to guarantee their personal and property rights.²¹ ¶ 10 If this cause were about the abolition of the right to seek redress for every type of injury or complaint of any civil case that required a filing fee, we would agree that Mehdipour v. Wise, 2003 OK 3, 65 P.3d 271, and its progeny would be dispositive. However, it is not about the abolishment of a right to seek redress, but rather, whether the conditions imposed which limit the right to seek redress are constitutional. We have not addressed the issue of whether withholding the right of an indigent prisoner to seek redress for a civil complaint that requires a filing fee, until the filing fee is prepaid, violates access to the courts or due process.²²

¶ 11 Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g)(1996) of the Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (the Act) has a provision which is similar to Oklahoma's 57 O.S.2001 § 566.2.²³ Section 1915(g) provides:

"In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the Untied States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury."

Under the Act, federal courts may also exempt non-prisoner indigents from prepaying filing fees.²⁴ However, the federal courts may not exempt prisoner indigents from prepaying filing fees. Instead, prisoner indigents must prepay at least a partial filing fee followed by monthly payments until the fees are paid.²⁵ A limited exception exists for prisoners with no assets and no means to pay the initial partial filing fee.²⁶ ¶ 12 The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g)(1996) as it relates to access to the courts or due process. Our research does not reveal any persuasive authority for holding the statute unconstitutional. However, the federal circuit courts have addressed the constitutionality of the statute and agree that it is constitutional and does not deny access to courts, due process, or violate the equal protection clause.²⁷

¶ 13 The courts which have determined that the "three strikes" rule does not block a prisoner's access to courts do so because, by its terms, it does not prevent prisoners from filing civil actions, it merely prohibits them from enjoying in forma pauperis status.²⁸ The rationale is that: 1) prisoners aren't prohibited from accessing the courts to protect their rights—they merely must pay the filing fees; 2) it only precludes prisoners with a history of abusing the legal system from continuing to misuse it while enjoying in forma pauperis status; and 3) only after demonstrating an inability to function within the judicial system is an indigent inmate asked to pay the filing fee.²⁹

¶ 14 These courts also recognize that the United States Supreme Court has never required an unlimited rule that indigents, at all times, in...