James E. Coakley v. Alfred I. Murphy

Good Law
884 F.2d 1218·1989 WL 101571·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13433
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 6, 198988-3784California1,723 words

Opinion

Opinion

Leavy, J.

OVERVIEW

James E. Coakley (Coakley) appears pro se to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his in forma pauperis action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) (West 1982). Coakley contends (1) he was denied due process and equal protection when he was returned without a hearing to prison from a work release facility after he refused to sign a work release agreement; and (2) the court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint without leave to amend.

The district court’s order is affirmed.

FACTS

Coakley was incarcerated in the Idaho State Penitentiary in Boise, Idaho. Later, he was approved for work release and was transported to the Boise Community Work Center, where the work release inmates live.

After he arrived at the work center, Coakley informed a counselor that he would not sign a copy of the work release agreement. The work release agreement stipulates the conditions under which inmates participate in the program. Coakley was warned that .if he failed to sign the agreement, he would be sent back to the penitentiary. Paul Corrick, the Employment Development Coordinator for the work center, presented Coakley with the agreement and asked him to read it,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.