White v. Gregory, 95-1215
Decision Date | 21 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-1215,95-1215 |
Citation | 87 F.3d 429 |
Parties | David WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melanie GREGORY, Technical Services Manager, Director; Penny Brown, Jail Director, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Submitted on the Briefs: *
David C. White, pro se, Delta, Colorado, on the brief, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert J. Loew and Marlene T. Gresh, Brighton, Colorado, on the brief, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff David C. White, a Colorado state prisoner, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Melanie Gregory, the Technical Services Manager at the Adams County Detention Facility, Penny Brown, the Director of the Adams County Detention Facility, and Sheriff Ed Camp violated his federal constitutional rights by denying his request for additional time in the jail's law library. A magistrate judge granted Mr. White leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered service of process. The magistrate judge subsequently issued a recommendation that the district court grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the magistrate's recommendation and Mr. White's written objections thereto, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The district court gave the following reason for its decision:
Having reviewed the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge suggests that those materials do not support any finding that the policies of the detention facility, taken as a whole, are unconstitutional. I agree. There is nothing in this record to indicate that the restrictions which defendants have placed on plaintiff's use of the library facilities are unreasonable ones.
This appeal followed.
As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Mr. White is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in the court of appeals. As noted above, the magistrate judge granted Mr. White leave to proceed in forma pauperis in district court. On May 24, 1995, Mr. White filed both a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). The district court denied the motion and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). Mr. White then filed a motion in this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). Although Mr. White did not file his motion within thirty days after service of the district court's order certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith, see id., we will accept his motion as timely. See Fed.R.App.P. 26(b); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice p 224.02, p. 24-9, n. 13 ( ).
Our handling of Mr. White's motion depends heavily on whether the recent amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, §§ 801-10, 110 Stat. 1321, ----, have any impact on Mr. White's fee status in this court. See Pub.L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, §§ 804-05, 110 Stat. at ----. Our review of the Act leads us to conclude the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply when, as in this case, the prisoner/appellant filed his notice of appeal before April 26, 1996, the date President Clinton signed the Act into law. 1 We therefore apply the law in effect prior to April 26, 1996, and consider whether Mr. White has demonstrated "a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal." DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.1991); see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445-48, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921-23, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir.1962). We conclude Mr. White has sustained this burden and grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
We now turn to the merits of this appeal. Mr. White first contends the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claim he was unconstitutionally denied access to the jail law library. We disagree. The sole basis of Mr. White's claim is that he was allowed to use the library only two hours per week. Prisoners are not entitled to unlimited access to the law library, Petrick v. Maynard, 11 F.3d 991, 994 (10th Cir.1993); Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wildflower Int'l, Ltd. v. United States
...or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding" as only governing "bringing new actions or filing new appeals"); White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Our review of the Act leads us to conclude the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply when, as in this case, the ......
-
Wildflower Int'l, Ltd. v. United States
...or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding" as only governing "bringing new actions or filing new appeals"); White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Our review of the Act leads us to conclude the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply when, as in this case, the ......
-
Chandler v. District of Columbia Dept. of Corrections
...1915(g) governs bringing new actions or filing new appeals ... rather than the disposition of existing cases."); White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 528, 136 L.Ed.2d 415 (1996); see also Garcia v. Silbert, 141 F.3d 1415, 1416 (10th Cir.1998......
-
Leonard v. Ault, No. C03-0121-LRR (N.D. Iowa 12/2/2003)
...Garcia v. Silbert, 141 F.3d 1415, 1416 (10th Cir. 1998); Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996); White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429, 430 (10th Cir. 1996). Cf. Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 386-87 (holding application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) to appeals filed prior to the effective date......
-
Prison Litigation Reform
...(2d Cir. 1996); Ramsey v. Coughlin, 94 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1996)(declining to apply filing fee requirements retroactively); White v. Gregory, 87 F.3d 429 (10th Cir. 1996)(declining to apply filing fee requirements retroactively); Copley v. Hender-son, 980 F. Supp. 322 (D. Neb. 1997); Rodgers v......