Case Title: MAHORNEY v. MOORE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96726

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAHORNEY v. MOORE  MAHORNEY v. MOORE 2002 OK 39 50 P.3d 1128 Case Number: 96726 Decided: 05/14/2002 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOHN H. MAHORNEY, Appellant v. THE HONORABLE MARK A. MOORE, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, BLAINE COUNTY, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLAINE COUNTY, HONORABLE MARK A. MOORE, ASSOCIATE DISTRICT JUDGE ¶0 John H. Mahorney, a prisoner, filed four lawsuits against prison personnel alleging his constitutional right to smoke had been violated. He alleged pauper status so that he would not have to pay the filing fees for the lawsuits. After a hearing on his status, the trial judge ordered Mahorney to pay $10.00 filing fees in each of the four cases and imposed a lien on Mahorney's pay from prison labor. Mahorney filed one appeal covering all four cases. We recast the appeal as an original proceeding for a prerogative writ. WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, WITH INSTRUCTIONS. John H. Mahorney, pro se Hon. Mark A. Moore, pro se WINCHESTER, J ¶1 The appellant, John H. Mahorney, a prisoner, filed four petitions in the district court against four different prison officials working at the Diamondback Correctional Facility, in which he is incarcerated. He alleged a constitutional right to smoke, and claimed that the correctional officers violated that right. When Mahorney petitioned for pauper status so that court costs would be waived, the trial court ordered certain information to verify his alleged status. After Mahorney provided the requested documents from the correctional facility concerning his trust account, the trial court issued an order for each case finding that Mahorney was receiving $24.00 per month payment during his incarceration, and that he was therefore able to pay a partial filing fee of $10.00 in each case. The court assessed those costs against him, and imposed a lien on his pay to secure the payment. ¶2 Mahorney filed one appeal with the intention that all four cases on the docket of the District Court of Blaine County, Causes CJ-01-69, 71, 72, and 73, be determined by that appeal. We must initially determine two procedural issues. First, we must determine whether the district court's orders are appealable. Second, we must decide whether Mahorney may use one appeal to decide four cases. The final issue to be resolved is whether the trial court's specific rulings regarding partial payment of filing fees exceeded the court's authority. ¶3 The district court ordered Mahorney to present documents to support his alleged pauper status. ¶4 This Court has appellate jurisdiction to review final orders, interlocutory orders appealable by right, and certified interlocutory orders. ¶5 Because the four orders have no effect on the continuation of the four district court cases, the orders are interlocutory judicial actions that are unreviewable in advance of judgment. LCR, Inc. v. Linwood Properties, ¶6 Although these cases are not appealable, and this Court may properly dismiss them, they do present the issue of the constitutional right of access to the courts. The finding that an order is not appealable does not necessarily preclude review. We look to the content and substance of an instrument filed in this Court rather than its title. First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Ada v. Arles, ¶7 Foust also held that in the exercise of a court's discretion when determining a proper partial filing fee, a court may consider present account balances of the prisoner, monthly income, other assets, and whether any funds are withdrawn to avoid payment of a statutory fee or partial fee. Foust, ¶8 Mahorney contends that the trial court must either grant or deny eligibility to proceed with no costs. The exhibits attached by Mahorney indicated that as of June 7, 2001, Mahorney had a balance of $0.01 in his Trust Account # 1. The trial court's response to Mahorney's "Petition in Error" advises that Mahorney has filed twelve other actions in the District Court of Blaine County, and that the court's order required Mahorney to pay less than one-eighth of the court costs of the four cases now before this Court. We have previously held that the district courts have the authority to require partial payment. Foust, ¶9 The general rule for a prerogative writ to issue is that the party seeking the writ must have a clear legal duty in which the exercise of [50 P.3d 1130] discretion is not implicated; and it may be issued only in situations where there is no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Oklahoma Gas & Electric v. District Court, ¶10 We issue the writs of mandamus and prohibition to the extent that the district court shall not require a filing fee equal to all of Mahorney's funds. The district court shall determine the amount of the filing fee consistent with the guidelines found in Foust and the instructions in this opinion. That court shall also allow Mahorney an opportunity to object to the filing fee as so determined. WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, WITH INSTRUCTIONS. ¶11 CONCUR: HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ. ¶12 DISSENT: OPALA, J. (JOINS KAUGER, J.) KAUGER, J. (BY SEPARATE WRITING) FOOT