DAVID WALTER COPELAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TOM GREEN AND KELLY L. YORK, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
PER CURIAM: David Walter Copeland is a repeat litigant.
In March 1990, he filed eight complaints with the district court, and he sought to proceed in forma pauperis in each of these lawsuits.
On March 27,1990, the district court dismissed the eight lawsuits as frivolous and ordered that any future complaints submitted by Copeland not be filed unless approved by a judge of the court. This order was the subject of a previous appeal to this court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Following the March 27, 1990, order, Copeland continued to deluge the district court with complaints and other papers.
The district court entered an order requiring Copeland to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for this abuse of his access to the court. Following a hearing at which Copeland appeared on his own behalf, the district court entered an order that (1) enjoined Copeland from entering the Hugo L. Black Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, until further order of the court; (2) directed Copeland to deliver any paper that he wished to file with the clerk of the district court through the United States Mail, rather than in person to the courthouse; and (3) directed that any paper thus received from Copeland be marked by the clerk, “Received,” and not marked “Filed,” unless and until the paper was first submitted by the clerk to a judge of the court and approved by the judge for actual filing. It is this order that is the subject of this appeal. There is no doubt that the district court had the power to devise an injunction to protect itself against Copeland’s abuses.
We hold, however, that the provisions barring Copeland from entering the federal courthouse in Birmingham and from delivering documents to the Clerk of Court are impermissibly restrictive of his right to access to that court. In all other respects, the district court’s order complies with constitutional mandates.
Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and the case is REMANDED with instructions that the district court enter an order consistent with this opinion. Copeland’s motions, filed with this court, for the FBI to provide a copy of his complete file, for the U.S. Marshal Service to provide a copy of his complete file, and to require Tom Green to vacate the office of the U.S. Marshal are DENIED. . See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F. 2d 1069 (11th Cir.1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Miller v. Commissioner James Donald, 541 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 2008)…relief. See, e.g., Procup, 792 F. 2d at 1074 (vacating an injunction that prohibited filings by indigent prisoner without an attorney and holding that litigants “cannot be completely foreclosed from any access to the court.”); cf. Copeland v. Green, 949 F. 2d 390, 391 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (reversing district court’s order banning IFP litigant from delivering documents to the courthouse because it is “impermissibly restrictive of his right of access to that court”). Designing an acceptable procedura…
-
Martin-Trigona v. Leander Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir. 1993)…is that a litigant cannot be "completely foreclosed from any access to the court." Procup v. Strickland, 792 F. 2d at 1074 (emphasis in original). This Court has upheld pre-filing screening restrictions on litigious plaintiffs. Copeland v. Green, 949 F. 2d 390 (11th Cir.1991); Cofield v. Alabama Public Serv. Comm., 936 F. 2d 512, 517-18 (11th Cir.1991). This Court has also stressed that, "[c]onsiderable discretion necessarily is reposed in the district court" when it drafts such orders. Procup v. Strick…
-
In re Litigation, 976 F. Supp. 1455 (M.D. Fla. 1995)…erable discretion in restricting the filings” of a litigator such as Day. Traylor v. City of Atlanta, 805 F.2d 1420 (11th Cir.1986), ce rt. denied, 479 U.S. 1095, 107 S.Ct. 1313, 94 L.Ed.2d 167 (1987). See, also, Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir.1991) (prescreening of repeat litigant’s papers pri- or to fifing permissible); Cofield v. Ala. Public Service Com’n, 936 F.2d 512 (11th Cir.1991) (prescreening permissible). Day’s abuse warrants remedial measures to prevent his furt…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986)