Mitchell v. Farcass, 96-3026

• Decision Date: 06 May 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-3026,96-3026
• Parties: , 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 918 Henry Greene MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave FARCASS, Superintendent, Hendry Correctional Institution, J. King, Inspector Hendry Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1483

112 F.3d 1483

37 Fed.R.Serv.3d 833, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 918

Henry Greene MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave FARCASS, Superintendent, Hendry Correctional

Institution, J. King, Inspector Hendry

Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-3026.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 6, 1997.

Henry Greene Mitchell, Miami, FL, pro se.

Nikola Richard Djuric, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Louis F. Hubener, Attorney General's Office, Tallahassee, FL, Barbara L. Herwig, Peter R. Maier, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and LAY ^*, Senior Circuit Judge.

HATCHETT, Chief Judge:

In this prisoner civil rights action, we consider challenges to provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA" or "the Act"), Title VIII of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996). We hold that: (1) the provisions of the PLRA codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) apply to cases pending prior to the Act's passage; (2) the filing fee requirements of the PLRA do not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection; (3) to the extent the PLRA's filing fee requirements conflict with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), the Act's provisions control; (4) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standards govern our review of dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and (5) the district court erred in dismissing the appellant's First Amendment retaliation claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

I. BACKGROUND

On January 29, 1996, appellant Henry Mitchell, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dave Farcass, Superintendent of the Hendry Correctional Institution ("HCI"), and J. King, an inspector at HCI. The district court granted Mitchell's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Mitchell's complaint alleges the following factual scenario.

In late December 1995, Mitchell, then an inmate at HCI, wrote a letter to the Naples, Florida office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in which he complained about the religious services at HCI. Mitchell also sent copies of this letter to several officials of Florida's correctional system, including Farcass. On January 15, 1996, Mitchell submitted an inmate request to Farcass, asking him to explain "why no black culture churches were being allowed to come into [HCI] like the [S]panish culture churches and the white churches." In this request, Mitchell claimed that HCI's religious services did not comply with the provision of the Florida Administrative Code that governs chaplaincy services at state correctional institutions. According to Mitchell, around eighty other inmates had submitted requests "asking the same question or pertaining to that subject."

The following day, January 16, a prison employee told Mitchell to report to "C-Building." Upon his arrival, Mitchell met with Farcass, other HCI officials and another inmate. Farcass had in his possession the inmate requests concerning the chaplaincy services, including Mitchell's request. Mitchell guesses that the officials requested his and the other inmate's presence at this meeting because they considered the two inmates "to be the leaders." Farcass told the inmates that the amount of requests upset him and that "some one could be charged with [in]citing a riot." Farcass, however, also told Mitchell and the other inmate that the "meeting was to address the issue presented in the requests" and that they "were not being charged with anything, ... were not going to get locked up, [and] were not going to get transfer[r]ed." Farcass informed the inmates that officials had to process paperwork in order for representatives from black churches to begin visiting HCI.

The next day, January 17, an HCI employee told Mitchell to report to the chaplain, and Mitchell wound up meeting with the chaplain, assistant chaplain and assistant superintendent of HCI. The assistant superintendent stated that the purpose of the meeting was for the chaplain to explain the procedures churches had to comply with before they could be permitted to provide religious services at HCI. During the meeting, someone called the assistant superintendent from the room. Upon returning, the assistant superintendent reported that Farcass and King had ordered Mitchell placed in administrative confinement while HCI officials investigated whether he was responsible for inciting a riot.

HCI officials placed Mitchell in administrative confinement that same day. When officials brought Mitchell his property, he found that his legal materials had been "smashed" and "crushed." Later, in the evening, three correctional officers entered Mitchell's cell, handcuffed him behind his back, and "smashed" his legal work and property. Thereafter, Mitchell submitted another inmate request to Farcass, this time asking that he be placed in "protective management" because he feared further retaliation from the HCI staff.

Mitchell asserts that Farcass and King breached his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; he seeks monetary relief. On June 18, 1996, the district court addressed Mitchell's complaint. Recognizing Mitchell's IFP status, the court assessed his pleading under the provisions of section 804(a) of the PLRA that are now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court held, "[a]fter reading Plaintiff's complaint in a liberal fashion," that Mitchell could "prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Therefore, the court dismissed Mitchell's complaint sua sponte pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ¹

Thereafter, Mitchell moved in the district court to proceed IFP on appeal. On July 31, 1996, the court granted the motion (thus allowing Mitchell to proceed without prepaying the entire $105 appellate docketing and filing fee) and applied the filing fee provisions of PLRA section 804(a), see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a), (b) (West Supp.1997). As a result, the court ordered Mitchell to tender payment of a fee equal to twenty percent of his average monthly deposits to his prison account (this fee totalled $4) and make monthly payments (submitted with updated account statements) equal to twenty percent of the income credited to his account each preceding month, until he paid the full docketing and filing fee. Mitchell filed his notice of appeal on July 3, 1996.

In his pro se brief to this court, Mitchell argued, among other things, that the district court erred in applying section 1915(e)(2) to his complaint because he commenced this lawsuit prior to the PLRA's enactment on April 26, 1996, and that the filing fee provisions of the PLRA violated constitutional norms. This court appointed Mitchell a lawyer and placed this case on the oral argument calendar. The United States intervened in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a), and the State of Florida participated as amicus curiae.

II. DISCUSSION

A.

The first issue we address is whether section 1915(e)(2) applies to cases pending prior to the enactment of the PLRA. The district court's determination of this issue was one of law; we review it under the de novo standard. E.g., Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir.1993).

Prior to the passage of the PLRA, section 1915 permitted a court to dismiss a case authorized under that section if "satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994). As amended by the PLRA, however, section 1915 now provides that a court "shall dismiss the case at any time" if it determines that the "action or appeal" is "(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (West Supp.1997). As stated, the district court dismissed Mitchell's complaint under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

"Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), provides the analytical framework for determining whether newly enacted statutory provisions are applicable to pending cases." Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1569 (11th Cir.1996) (en banc ), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3648 (U.S. Mar. 10, 1997) (No. 96-1443). Under Landgraf, our first inquiry is "to determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach." 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. Here, however, Congress has simply not spoken on the issue. Accordingly, we should apply section 1915(e)(2) to pending cases unless doing so would engender a "retroactive effect." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also Hunter, 101 F.3d at 1570. A new statute has a retroactive effect if, in applying it to a pending case, it (1) impairs rights a party possessed when he or she acted, (2) increases a party's liability for past conduct, or (3) imposes new duties with respect to transactions already completed. Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505; Hunter 101 F.3d at 1570.

The second and third indices of statutory retroactive effect outlined above clearly have no application to this case, and Mitchell makes no argument to the contrary. The issue for us to consider then, is whether the application of section 1915(e)(2) to this case "would impair rights [Mitchell] possessed when he acted." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280, 114 S.Ct. at 1505. Mitchell states that under pre-PLRA section 1915, the first test of the sufficiency of his complaint would probably have come after the defendants had filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), after which time he could have amended his complaint in light of the defendants'...