# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 30 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Greg or y Hou st on Hol t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ch el le Howar d, Pu bl ic Inf or m at io n Off

ic er, Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t, i n he r Offi ci al Cap aci ty O nl y ; St at e o f Ark an sa s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 15
Fil ed : No ve m

be r 27 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Greg or y Hol t, an in carc erat ed fel on , br ou gh t th is cas e ag ai ns t th e st at e of

Ark an sa s an d Mi ch el le Howar d, an em pl oyee of th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t,

al le gi ng th at th e Ark an sa s Free do m of In fo rm at io n Act vi ol at es th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n

an d du e pr oc es s cl au se s of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Howar d ha d de ni ed Hol t's

pr o se req ue st fo r do cu m en ts ab ou t an in d i v i d u al he ha d as sa ul te d be cau se th e Acton ly pe rm it s an in carc erat ed fel on to req ue st in fo rm at io n of pu bl ic reco rd th ro ug h an

at to rn ey

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Act w a s co ns ti tu ti on al an d gr an te d 1

su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s. Ho lt ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

In 20 09 Hol t as sa ul te d C.T., an d t h e s t a t e ch arg ed hi m wit h ag gr av at ed

res id en ti al bu rg la ry an d fir st de gr ee do m es ti c ba tt ery. Hol t was tri ed in Pu la sk i

Co un ty Ci rcu it Co ur t, C.T. t es ti fie d a ga in st hi m , and th e jury co nv ic te d hi m of two

fel on ie s on Ju ne 3, 20 10

. H e w a s s e nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t on th e bu rg la ry

co nv i c t i o n an d rece iv ed a co nc ur ren t fo rty y ears se nt en ce on th e do m es ti c ba tt ery

co nv ic ti on

. Hol t ha s un su cces sf ul ly ch al le ng ed hi s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces in bo th

st at e an d fe de ral co ur ts

.

On Ju ne 28

, 20 12 Hol t sen t a le tt er to Howar d, th e pu bl ic in fo rm at io n offi cer

in th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t. In hi s le tt er Hol t req ue st ed "[p ]urs ua nt to th e

Ark an sa s Free do m of In fo r mat io n Act" reco rd s "p ert ai ni ng to [C.T.] si nc e Ju ne 3,

20 10 as well as an y r e c o r d s p e r ta in in g to [C.T.'s pr es um pt iv e Lit tl e Ro ck ad dr es s]

si nc e Ju ne 3, 20 10 ." Howar d d e n i e d Hol t's req ue st on Ju ly 12

, 20 12

. In he r de ni al

le tt er Howar d ci te d a res tri ct io n in th e st at ut e whi ch pr ev en ts pr o s e i n carc erat ed

fel on s fro m acce ss in g do cu m en ts un de r th e Act. The rel ev an t st at ut o r y pr ov is io n

st at es th at :

acce ss to in sp ect an d co py pu bl ic reco rd s sh al l be de ni ed to : (i) A pe rs on who at th e ti m e of th e req ue st ha s pl ead ed gu il ty to or be en fo un d gu il ty
of a fe l o n y an d is in carc erat ed in a co rrec ti on al faci li ty; an d (ii ) The

rep res en ta ti ve of a pe rs on un de r su bd iv is io n (a)( 1) (B)( i) of th is se ct io n

un le ss th e rep res en ta ti ve is th e pe rs on 's at to rn ey who is req ue st in g in fo rm at io n t ha t i s s ub

ject t o d is cl os ur e u nd er t hi s s ect io n.

Ark . Cod e Ann . § 2 5- 19 -1 05 (a)( 1) (B).

The Hon or ab le D.P. Mar sh al l, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Hol t fil ed th is act io n ag ai ns t Howar d an d th e st at e of Ark an sa s al le gi ng th at th e

Act's ex cl us io n of pr o se in carc erat ed fel on s de ni es eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la w to th is

cat eg or y of pe rs on s and de ni es th em acce ss to le gi ti m at e le ga l do cu m en ts th ey m ay

n e e d fo r po st co nv ic ti on ap pe al s. W it h res pe ct to hi s eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m , H o l t

al le ge s th at th e Act is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se it ha s no rat io na l ba si s an d on ly se ek s

to pr oh i b i t i nd ig en t pr is on ers fro m po st co nv ic ti on red res s. In res pe ct to hi s du e

pr oc es s cl ai m , Hol t al le ge s th at as a res ul t of th e de ni al of hi s reco rd s req ue st he "was

un ab le to acce ss an d th eref or e pr es en t wha t he be li ev ed was ne w e vi de nc e."

A l th ou gh th e co ur t ha d or de red th e pa rti es to co m pl et e di sc ov ery by Ja n u a r y 2 4

, 20 14 , Hol t d id no t re qu es t d is co ve ry fro m eit he r de fen da nt by tha t d at e.

The st at e an d Howar d fil ed m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t whi ch th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d. The co ur t de te rm in ed th at Hol t ha d st an di ng to pu rs ue hi s cl ai m s, bu t

co nc lu de d th at th e ch al le ng ed pr ov is io n was co nst it ut io na l un de r th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n

an d du e pr oc es s cl au se s. Hol t su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed th ree pr o se po st jud gm en t m ot io ns

fo r rel ie f. He arg ue d th at th e co ur t sh ou ld pr ov id e hi m wit h th e op po rtu ni ty to ta ke

ad di ti on al di s c o v e r y an d of fer ev id en ce to refu te th e de fen da nt s' pr of fere d rat io na l

ba se s fo r th e Act

. The co ur t de ni ed al l th ree m ot io ns

. Hol t ap pe al s th e un de rlyin g

su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er an d t he ord ers de nyin g h is m ot io ns for rel ie f.

"We r ev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t's gra nt of s um m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o, vi ewin g

th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d gi vi ng th at pa rty th e

be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at can be dr awn fro m th e reco rd ." Mi nn

. ex rel

. N. Pac. Ct r., In c. v. BNSF Ry. C o

. , 68 6 F.3 d 56 7, 57 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe n no ge nu in e di sp ut e ex is ts "as to an y m at eri al fact an d

th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed t o ju d g men t as a m at te r of la w." Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). W e

"m ay affi rm th e jud gm en t on an y ba si s su pp or te d by th e reco rd ." Hoh n v. BNSF Ry

. Co ., 70 7 F .3d 99 5, 1 00 0 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).

-3

-Hol t co nt en ds th at pe rm it ti ng on ly th os e in carc erat ed fel on s who ha ve co un se l

to acce ss in fo rm at io n un de r th e Act vi ol at es th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl au se

. The

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s st at es fro m de nyin g "an y pe rs on wit hi n it s juri sd ic ti on th e eq u a l p r o t e c ti on of th e la ws." U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV, § 1. The

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s h o wev er lo ng he ld th at a cl as si fic at io n th at do es no t in vo lv e

fu nd am en ta l rig ht s or su sp ect cl as se s do es no t vi ol at e th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl au se "i f

th ere is a rat io na l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e di sp ari ty of tre at m en t an d so m e le gi ti m at e

go ve rn m en ta l pu rp os e." Hell er v. Doe

, 50 9 U.S. 31 2, 31 9– 20 (1 99 3)

. Rat io na l ba si s

rev ie w do es no t req ui re pr oo f of th e le gi sl at ur e's act ua l m ot iv at io n, bu t on ly th at so m e

rat io na l ba si s ex is ts fo r th e la w. See Ci ty of Cl eb ur ne , Tex

. v. Cl eb ur ne Liv in g Ct r.,

47 3 U.S. 43 2, 44 8 (1 9 8 5 )

. B ecau se th e st at ut e's cl as si fic at io n is pr es um ed

co ns ti tu ti on al

, Hol t ha s th e bu rd en of ne ga ti ng ev ery co nc ei va bl e ba si s whi ch m ig ht

su pp or t i t. See Hell er, 5 09 U.S. at 3 20

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se th e Act's

li m it at io n on th os e who m an y be ne fit fro m th e la w is rat io na ll y rel at ed to at le as t two

le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en t pu rp os es

. Fi rs t, th e Act's cl as si fic at io n is rat io na ll y rel at ed to

th e pr ev en ti on of un la wfu l us e of th e st at ut e be cau se at to rn ey s are pr oh ib it ed fro m

as si st in g cl ie nt s in cri m in al or frau du le nt en te rp ris es

. Ark an sa s Ru le of Pro fes si on al

C o n d u c t 1.2 (d ) st at es th at "[a ] la wy er sh al l no t co un se l a cl ie nt to en ga ge , o r as si st

a c l i e n t

, in co nd uc t th at th e la wy er kn ows is cri m in al or frau du le nt ." Ru le 1.2 (d )

ap pl ie s t o t he ful l s co pe of a tt or ne y rep res en ta ti on , in cl ud in g re qu es ti ng reco rd s o n

be ha lf of cl ie nt s. The et hi cal ru le s th us pr oh ib it an at t o r n e y f r om he lp in g a cl ie nt

req ue st reco rd s fo r th e pu rp os e of ha ras si n g o r th reat en in g a wit ne ss or vi ct im

. Co nc ern ab ou t in m at es ha r a s s i n g o th ers th ro ug h reco rd req ue st s is no t a va gu e

un di ffer en ti at ed fear

, co nt rary to Hol t's co nt en ti on

. The sa fet y of ot he rs is a "fa ct or []

whi ch [is ] pr op erl y co gn iz ab le " by a le gi sl at iv e bo dy whe n de te rm in in g th e li m it s of

a st at e p ub li c rec or ds law. See Cit y of C le bu rn e, 47 3 U.S. at 44 8.

-4

-The Act's cl as si fi cat io n is al so rat io na ll y rel at ed to co ns erv in g go ve rn m en t

res ou rces

. Req ui rin g i n c a r c e rat ed fel on s to m ak e reco rd req ue st s th ro ug h co un se l

red uc es th e nu m

be r of reco rd req ue st s m ad e to st at e an d lo cal ag en ci es

. Rel y in g on

th is rat io na le in G i a r r a t an o v. Jo hn so n, th e Fo ur th Ci rcu it reas on ed th at Virg in ia

"co ns erv e[d ] st at e res ou rces an d pr ev en t[e d] fri vo l o u s r e qu es ts " by ex cl ud in g al l

pr is on ers fro m ut il iz in g th e st at e's free do m of in fo rm at io n st at ut e. See 52 1 F.3 d 29 8,

30 5 (4 th Cir . 20 08 ). Hol t's arg um en ts ab ou t t he br ead th of th e Act's cla ss ifi cat io ns

are m eri tl es s. W he th er al l or so m e pr is on ers are ex cl ud ed

, th e ov eral l nu m be r o f

req ue s t s r eq ui rin g a res po ns e de crea se s. The rat io na l ba si s te st on ly req ui res a

le gi sl at ur e to dr aw a rat io na l lin e to ach ie ve th e g ov ern m en t p ur po se s s ou gh t, n ot a "p erfe ct li ne ." See Arm ou r v. Ci ty of In di an ap ol is

, In d., 1 3 2 S

. Ct

. 20 73

, 20 83
(2 01 2)

. Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d ab ov e, th e Ark an sa s le gi sl at ur e's cl as si fic at io n is

rat io na l ev en if im

pe rfec t. W e th us co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t o n Ho lt 's e qu al pro te ct io n c la im

.

Hol t al so arg ue s th at th e Act vi ol at es hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht to acce ss th e co ur ts

be cau se it pr ev en t s h i m f r om acce ss in g ne w ev id en ce. To st at e an acce ss to th e

co ur ts cl ai m , "a pr is on er m us t es ta bl is h [th at ] th e st at e h a s no t pr ov id ed an

op po rtu ni ty to li ti g a t e a cl ai m ch al le ng in g th e pr is on er's se nt en ce or co nd it io ns of

co nf in em en t in a co ur t o f la w, whi ch res ul te d i n actu al in jury, th at is

, th e hi nd ran ce

of a no nf r i v o l o u s an d arg ua bl y m eri to rio us un de rlyin g le ga l cl ai m ." W il li am s v.

Hob bs , 6 58 F.3 d 84 2, 85 1– 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Hol t's du e pr oc es s clai m fai ls be cau se he ha s no t sh own th at he wil l su ffer an

act ua l in jury as a res ul t of th e Act's ex cl us io n. See id

. at 85 2. Hol t ha s no t be en

de ni ed acce ss to th e co ur ts in th e pa st

, an d he ha s fu ll y li t i g a t e d ch al le ng es to hi s

co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces in bo th st at e an d fed eral co ur ts

. Fo r an y fu tu re ch al le ng es , Ho l t m ay ob ta in th e reco rd s he se ek s by fil in g a di sc ov ery m ot io n wit h a ha be as

pe ti ti on

. Ru le 6 of th e ru le s go ve rn in g § 22 54 ca s e s pe rm it s pe ti ti on ers to co nd uc t

di sc ov ery if th ey sh ow go od cau s e

. Thi s ru le pr ov id es a sa fet y va lv e fo r Hol t to

-5

-acce ss do cu m en ts an d th e co ur ts if he ha s a cred ib le cl ai m , su ch as a no nf riv ol ou s

act ua l in no cen ce cl ai m un de r Sch lu p v. Delo

, 51 3 U.S. 29 8 (1 99 5)

. To th e ex te nt th at

Hol t co nt en ds he ha s a rig ht to acce ss po li ce de pa rtment do cu m en ts wit ho ut m eet in g

th e Ru le 6 req ui rem en ts , t he Su pr em e Co ur t h as po in te d o ut th at th e ri gh t t o a cces s

th e co ur ts do es no t in cl ud e th e rig ht to "l it ig at e effe ct iv el y on ce in co ur t." See Lewis

v. Cas ey , 51 8 U.S. 34 3, 35 4 (1 99 6) (em ph as is or ig in al ). Be c a u s e of th e rig ht s

av ai la bl e to hi m th ro ug h a ha be as pe ti ti on , Hol t su ffer s no act ua l in jury fro m th e Act

as a m at te r of

law. Th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r in gra nt in g s um m ary jud gm en t.

Hol t al so ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s th ree Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) m ot io ns fo r rel ie f fro m

th e jud gm en t, whi ch are s u bjec t to an ab us e of di sc ret io n te st

. See Noa h v. Bo nd

Co ld Sto rag e, 40 8 F .3d 10 43 , 10 45 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Und er Ru le 60 (b )(6 ), a di st ric t

co ur t m a y g r a nt rel ie f fro m a jud gm en t fo r an y reas on th at jus ti fie s rel ie f. In th es e

m ot io ns Hol t reas se rte d arg um en ts rai se d in hi s su m m ary jud gm en t br ie f an d arg ue d

th at he was e nt it le d t o fu rth er d is co ve ry to di sp ro ve th e p ro ffer ed rat io na l b as es for

th e Act's cl as si fic at io n. As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s on Hol t ' s e q u a l pr ot ect io n an d du e pr oc es s

cl ai m s. The di st ric t co ur t al so di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g Hol t's req ue st

fo r ad di ti on al di sc ov ery be cau se he fai le d t o u ti li ze the pr oc ed ur es av ai la bl e to hi m

w h i le di sc ov ery was op en , an d "[i ]nad eq ua te di sc ov ery can no t be a sh ie ld ag ai ns t

su m m ary jud gm en t wit ho ut a sh owi ng of a m eri to rio us op po si ti on ." Se e Po ny

Co m pu t., In c. v. Equ us Co m

pu t. Sy s. of Mo

., In c., 16 2 F.3 d 99 1, 99 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ).

W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

to th e de fen da nt s be cau se th e Act do es no t vi ol at e th e eq ua l pr ot ect io n or du e pr oc es s

cl au se s of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. We als o co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d

n o t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Hol t's Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io ns be cau se hi s cl a i ms

fai le d on th e m eri ts an d he was no t ent it le d to ad di ti on al di sc ov ery. The jud gm en ts

of th e d is tri ct co ur t ar e aff

irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-6

-