Paul Rodger Weller v. Fred H. Dickson, Andrew Emmitte Pope v. Richard A. McGee

These cases involve appeals from two orders denying permission to appellants to file civil actions in forma pauperis. In both cases appellants brought actions for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988 , 1 against various *600 officials of the State of California. Jurisdiction of the District Court was asserted, among other provisions, under said act and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 . Appellate jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

In Weller v. Dickson, Weller while confined at San Quentin Prison mailed certain documents to a District Court. One of the documents was a complaint which alleged that defendants named therein had denied Weller timely access to the courts because the prison authorities refused to type and mail legal documents on the day he requested them to be typed and mailed. Weller sought damages in the sum of $20,000. Another document was entitled “affidavit in forma pauper-is”.

The District Court denied his “application for relief” and this Court granted leave to proceed, on appeal, in forma pauperis. Further we consolidated the two cases for briefing and argument.

In Pope v. McGee, Pope while a prisoner at Folsom State Prison mailed a…

(concurring).

I concur in the result reached in the opinion of my brother ROSS, but not entirely in the reasoning by which that result is attained. It is not easy to define the standard by which the discretion of a trial judge is to be guided in deciding whether or not to grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S. C. § 1915. I think, however, that a distinction should be drawn between civil and criminal cases, although Judge ROSS’ opinion does not purport to do so. I also think that the district judge should have a broader discretion in civil actions brought by prisoners against *602 their jailers than in other civil actions. We know from sad experience with habeas corpus and 2255 cases that imprisoned felons are seldom, if ever, deterred by the penalties of perjury. They do not hesitate to allege whatever they think is required in order to get themselves even the temporary relief of a proceeding in court. The prospect of amercing their jailers in damages must be a most tempting one, even if it will not get them their freedom. The disruption of prison discipline that the maintenance of such suits, at government expense, can bring about, is not difficult to imagine.…

314 F.2d 598 Paul Rodger WELLER, Appellant, v. Fred H. DICKSON et al., Appellees. Andrew Emmitte POPE, Appellant, v. Richard A. McGEE et al., Appellees. No. 17606. No. 17450. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. February 15, 1963. Rehearing Denied in No. 17450 March 29, 1963. 1 Dick Ivan Oberholtzer and Donald D. Roberts, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. 2 Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen. of California, Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edsel W. Haws, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for appellees. 3 Before HAMLIN and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, District Judge. 4 ROSS, District Judge. 5 These cases involve appeals from two orders denying permission to appellants to file civil actions in forma pauperis. In both cases appellants brought actions for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988 , 1 against various officials of the State of California. Jurisdiction of the District Court was asserted, among other provisions, under said act and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 . Appellate jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . 6 In Weller v. Dickson, Weller while confined at San Quentin Prison mailed certain documents to a District Court.…