Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07066/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeala Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 51991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL DOUGLAS MCNEIL, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-572 

) 

WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

MICHAEL DOUGLAS MCNEIL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-7066 

) 

WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 373-M (in case No. 90-7066)) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Michael D. McNeil, pro se. 

John Raley, United States Attorney, 

Assistant United States Attorney, 

Respondent and Defendant-Appellee. 

D. Michael Littlefield, 

Muskogee, Oklahoma, for 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 1 
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

No. 90-572 

This is an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus. 

Petitioner seeks an order of this court directing respondent, the 

clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Oklahoma, to file all pro se papers concerning the Oklahoma 

prison class action, Battle v. Anderson, 1 district court No. 

72-95-C, submitted by petitioner or any other prisoners, who are 

members of the class. We conclude the petition has merit only as 

to petitioner's filings 2 and grant mandamus relief to that extent 

only. 

On two occasions, petitioner attempted to file papers within 

the Battle class action. 3 First, petitioner attempted to file a 

1 See, e.g., Battle v. Anderson, 788 F.2d 1421 (lOth Cir. 

1986); Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1523 (lOth Cir. 1983), cert. 

dismissed, 465 U.S. 1014 (1984); Battle v. Anderson, 457 F. Supp. 

719 (E.D. Okla. 1978), remanded by, 594 F.2d 786 (lOth Cir. 1979), 

appeal after remand, 614 F.2d 251 (lOth Cir. 1980); Battle v. 

Anderson, 447 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. Okla. 1977); Battle v. Anderson, 

376 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Okla. 1974). 

2 Petitioner lacks standing 

regarding the class action. 

to raise any claims of others 

3 Prior to attempting to file these papers, petitioner had 

contacted class counsel about enforcing the consent decree. In 

response, class counsel acknowledged that he was still involved in 

Battle. He, however, refused to take or evaluate petitioner's 

case, as he was too busy. Petitioner later sent a second letter 

to class counsel, who did not respond. When he did not receive a 

response, petitioner sent a copy of the letter to the district 

court to file to show he attempted to get class counsel to act. 

The district court returned the letter to petitioner with an 

explanation that it was to be sent directly to class counsel and 

not filed with the court. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 2 
"Motion to Rescind the Temporary Indefinite Authority to Double 

Cell Oklahoma Prison Inmates." Essentially, petitioner sought 

enforcement of the consent decree in Battle. Respondent refused 

to file the motion. He sent petitioner's papers back to him with 

a letter indicating Battle was closed and petitioner should 

contact class counsel. On the second occasion, petitioner 

attempted to file a motion to show cause why Battle should not be 

reopened. In the motion, petitioner stated that class counsel 

refused to take the action requested or to respond to the request 

for further proceedings in Battle. 

file the papers, returning them 

Again, respondent refused to 

with a letter indicating 

petitioner should contact class counsel in Battle. 

After the district court refused to file his 

petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

papers, 

in the 

district court seeking an order directing respondent to file pro 

se pleadings of his and others in the Battle action. After the 

district court judge denied petitioner's motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, respondent returned the papers to 

petitioner unfiled. 

Petitioner then sought mandamus relief from this court. We 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of 

mandamus under 28 u.s.c. § 1651. Storage Technology Corp. v. 

United States Dist. Court, 934 F.2d 244, 246 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

"'The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction 

both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine 

an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 3 
jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is 

its duty to do so.'" Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 

U.S. 296, 308 (1989)(quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 

U.S. 21, 26 (1943)). In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, 

a petitioner must show a clear abuse of discretion or conduct 

which arbitrarily assumes and exercises authority contrary to that 

of the judiciary. See id. at 309. Additionally, because mandamus 

is an extraordinary remedy, a petitioner must also show that he 

lacks an alternative for the relief he seeks and that his right to 

the writ is not in dispute. Id. 

In this case, petitioner has met his burden of showing that 

he has no alternative from which to seek relief. The district 

court will not file or consider his papers, and class counsel will 

not consider the same papers to determine whether to file a motion 

to enforce Battle. Thus, under these circumstances, petitioner 

has been effectively excluded from federal court. See Facteau v. 

Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 1319 (lOth Cir. 1988). He has no 

alternative other than mandamus in which to seek relief. 

In addition, petitioner has proven that respondent acted 

without jurisdiction and abused his discretion so as to cause a 

usurpation of power. See Storage Technology Corp. v. United 

States Dist. Court, 934 F.2d at 246-47. Although we agree, as 

respondent argues, that he need not file papers if the filing fee 

is not paid or if the district court denies leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a), the record 

indicates the district court judge denied in forma pauperis status 

in only the mandamus action. Nothing in the record indicates in 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 4 
forma pauperis status was denied with respect to the other 

attempted filings. It appears that respondent returned the papers 

to petitioner on his own initiative. Because respondent's duties 

are merely ministerial and not judicial, such action was clearly 

beyond respondent's jurisdiction and was an abuse of discretion. 

Respondent should have permitted the papers seeking to enforce the 

consent decree to be filed and allowed the district court judge to 

make a ruling. 

Because there is a potentially recurring problem of 

individual members of the class seeking to litigate issues within 

the class action, respondent and the district court must have a 

procedure for handling pro se filings. Individual suits for 

injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional 

prison conditions cannot be brought where there is an existing 

class action. To permit them would allow interference with the 

ongoing class action. Long v. Collins, 917 F.2d 3, 4-5 (5th Cir. 

1990); Goff v. Menke, 672 F.2d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 1982). Claims 

for equitable relief must be made through the class representative 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 5 
until the class action is over or the consent decree is modified. 4 

Long, 917 F.2d at 4-5. 

Initially, respondent should file all pleadings. Because 

individual prisoners lack standing to individually litigate 

matters relating to the class action, see id.; Goff v. Menke, 672 

F.2d at 704, the district court should examine the filed papers to 

make a threshold determination if the allegations are separate 

from or should be raised within the Battle class action. If it is 

more efficient, the district court could refer the matter to a 

magistrate for a recommendation, see 28 u.s.c. § 636(b)(1)(A); 

McCarthy v. Bronson, 111 s. Ct. 1737 (1991), or appoint a special 

master to make a recommendation. If the claims are duplicative 

and are appropriately within the context of Battle, the district 

court should dismiss the action under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) and 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 u.s. 319 (1989), and either directly send 

the papers to class counsel or advise the pro se litigant that he 

must send the papers to class counsel. See Long v. Collins, 917 

F.2d at 4-5 (claims must be made through class counsel until class 

action is closed). 

4 Class members may bring individual suits only under two sets 

of circumstances. First, class members may bring individual 

actions for equitable relief when their claims are not being 

litigated within the boundaries of the class action. Spears v. 

Johnson, 859 F.2d 853, 855 (11th Cir. 1988), vacated in part on 

other grounds, 876 F.2d 1485 (11th Cir. 1989); Woodson v. Fulton, 

614 F.2d 940, 941 (4th Cir. 1980). Second, class members may 

bring individual actions when they seek money damages. Spears, 

859 F.2d at 854; Norris v. Slothouber, 718 F.2d 1116, 1117 (D.C. 

Cir. 1983); Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d 125, 127 (11th Cir. 1982); 

Goff, 672 F.2d at 704; cf. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 

(4th Cir. 1985)(court disagrees with rule precluding litigants 

from bringing separate damage actions, because its burdensome 

standards require every prisoner with a section 1983 claim to 

intervene in a class action in order to have his case heard). 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 6 
Alternatively, the district court judge, using his inherent 

power, could issue a standing order permitting respondent to 

determine whether a pro se pleading raises issues duplicative of 

the class action. If respondent determines a pleading is 

duplicative, respondent could forward the papers to class counsel. 

When there has been no standing order entered, however, respondent 

cannot refuse to file a pro se pleading. 

Class counsel has a continuing duty to receive papers until 

the class action is closed. He must examine the papers and make a 

decision on how to proceed. In doing so, he should exercise his 

independent judgment to determine whether a motion to enforce the 

consent decree should be filed. If respondent has forwarded 

papers pursuant to a standing order and class counsel disagrees 

with respondent's determination that the subject matter of the pro 

se pleading is within Battle, class counsel can certify his 

opinion to the district court. Respondent must then file the pro 

se pleading, and the district court itself must decide either 

initially or after referral whether the matter belongs within 

Battle. 

If, after the pro se papers are sent to class counsel, he 

refuses to examine the papers or inappropriately determines they 

have no merit, the pro se prisoner may file a separate action 

either seeking to intervene in Battle or challenging the adequacy 

of the representation by class counsel. See Baylor v. United 

States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 913 F.2d 223, 225 (5th Cir. 

1990); Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1074-75 (5th 

Cir. 1988); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 7 
1988); Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F.2d 626, 628 (11th Cir. 1987); Green 

v. McKaskle, 770 F.2d 445, 446-47 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Independent of any avenues of relief the pro se prisoner may 

have, the district court has a continuing supervisory duty over 

class counsel while the class is still open. See Foe v. Cuomo, 

892 F.2d 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1989)(district court judge has 

obligation to insure plaintiff class is adequately represented 

throughout litigation), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 441 (1990). 

Thus, the district court must constantly scrutinize class counsel 

to determine if counsel is adequately protecting the interests of 

the class. North Am. Acceptance Corp. Sec. Cases v. Arnall, 

Golden & Gregory, 593 F.2d 642, 645 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 

u.s. 956 (1979). Accordingly, the district court has the duty and 

authority to enter appropriate orders governing the conduct of 

class counsel and the parties. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 u.s. 

89, 100 (1981). 

If representation is inadequate, and the court of its own 

initiative has not done something about the inadequate 

representation, class members again have the two avenues of relief 

mentioned previously. The individual class members may seek to 

intervene in the class action, contending they are not adequately 

represented in the class action. Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 

at 1102-03; Guthrie v. Evans, 815 F.2d at 628; Green v. McKaskle, 

770 F.2d at 446-47; see also Brown v. Board of Educ., 84 F.R.D. 

383, 391-92, 404 (D. Kan. 1979)(proper method of challenging 

compliance with class action order is intervention in pending case 

rather than filing of a new action). The second option is for 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 8 
class members to file a collateral suit alleging that class 

counsel is not adequately representing the class. Baylor v. 

United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 913 F.2d at 225; Walker 

v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d at 1075; Guthrie, 815 F.2d at 628. 

When an action alleging inadequacy of representation has been 

filed or when pro se prisoners seek to intervene in the class 

action, the district court need not hold more elaborate 

proceedings than are necessary. Where the district court knows of 

the adequacy of representation by class counsel, no hearing is 

necessary. If the court has been monitoring counsel, it can 

evaluate the claims and dismiss the action sua sponte under 

section 1915(d) by stating that the inadequate pleadings do not 

raise an arguable basis in law or fact and that they are 

frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 u.s. at 325. 

Because there is potential for abuse of class counsel, class 

representation can be assumed adequate unless the class member 

raises substantial issues in a new suit or by intervention. Class 

counsel is entitled to be free from harassment by class members. 

All of his judgments cannot be challenged in court. Thus, because 

the district court has a responsibility to protect both class 

members and class counsel, it must balance the interests of class 

members against the danger of harassment to class counsel. 

If, however, a class member prevails in an independent 

action, he is not bound by the named class representative. Cf. 

Baylor v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 913 F.2d at 

223 (when unnamed class members fail to allege class 

representation is inadequate, they are bound by the named class 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 9 
representatives). He may assert his claims himself or through 

other counsel. 

Under the proposed method for managing the class action, if a 

pro se prisoner's allegations fall within the scope of Battle, his 

claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. The claims must be 

decided within the Battle class action. If the prisoner's 

allegations are outside the scope of Battle, the action can be 

heard on its merits. Cf. Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 

1319-20 (lOth Cir. 1988)(where case referred to special master is 

outside the scope of class action, it can be transferred back to 

the court for reinstatement of the suit or the prisoner may refile 

on his own). In a hybrid case where both class and nonclass or 

damages issues are raised, the district court must dismiss all 

issues properly to be decided in the class action and must decide 

the nonclass or damages issues. 

Accordingly, mandamus relief is granted. Respondent is 

directed to file petitioner's pro se papers in order that the 

district court may determine whether the arguments raised are 

within Battle. 

No. 90-7066 

Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 5 See Roberts v. 

5 After exam1n1ng the briefs and appellate 

has determined unanimously that oral argument 

assist the determination of this appeal. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case 

submitted without oral argument. 

10 

record, this panel 

would not materially 

See Fed. R. App. P. 

is therefore ordered 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 10 
United States Dist. Court, 339 u.s. 844, 845 (1950)(denial by a 

district judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an 

appealable order). As indicated above, petitioner attempted to 

file in district court a petition for writ of mandamus asking the 

district court to direct respondent to file his pro se papers 

seeking enforcement of the consent decree in Battle. The district 

court denied both leave to proceed and leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis. 

In light of our above discussion in No. 90-572, we conclude 

the district court erred in refusing to grant in forma pauperis 

status and in refusing to consider the petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

Accordingly, mandamus relief is GRANTED in No. 90-572. 

Respondent is directed to file petitioner's pro se papers in order 

that the district court may consider them as indicated in this 

order and judgment. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED 

in No. 90-7066. The district court's denial of leave to proceed 

and to appeal in forma pauperis is REVERSED, and the action is 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order and 

judgment. 

11 

Appellate Case: 90-7066 Document: 01019291076 Date Filed: 09/25/1991 Page: 11