Document: 404 U.S. 59 92 S.Ct. 313 30 L.Ed.2d 217 Fred A. CRUZ et al.v.W. B. 'Bill' HAUCK, Sheriff. No. 70-5343. Supreme Court of the United States November 16, 1971 On petition for writ certiorari to Appeals Fifth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion leave proceed in forma pauperis and a are granted. judgment is vacated case remanded Fith Circuit further consideration light Younger v. Gilmore, 15, 250, 142. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. 3 Petitioners prisoners who claim that prison authorities have denied them access law books needed seek judicial remedies. They inmates Bexar County Jail Texas instituted this action District restrain respondent's interference with their reasonable hardbound other legal matter.1 asserted county jail regulations practices deprived rights redress. Their custodians answered security necessitated removing hardback covers as part an overall scheme arrest smuggling contraband. Without conducting hearing into matter, summarily dismissed complaint.2 4 question important one evolution by status constitutional decisions Bill Rights prisoners. Prisoners not statistics, known only computer, but humans entitled all amenities privileges persons, save confinement necessary measures curtail activities. Whatever may be respecting books, it conceivably plausible maintain essential can totally banned. 5 That submerged initial issue concerns these prisoners' request on appeal from Court's dismissal action, having refused docket cases without prepayment filing fees which litigants normally advance. 6 filed timely notice pursuant Fed.Rule App.Proc. 24(a) (first paragraph) sought Judge $25 fee3 $250 minimum deposit required 7. request, certifying relevant that: 'This . opinion any taken order denial would frivolous, merit, good faith.'4 No explanation was offered although his earlier unreported dismissing original said do 'a right furnished extensive collection materials' courts 'may interfere conduct prison.'5 7 then applied similar waiver security. application opinion6 reconsideration also opinion.7 Presented were memoranda posing primary contention now before denials offended petitioners' equal machinery.8 8 * We held, line Griffin Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), indigent prisoner cannot direct criminal or state habeas relief solely account inability prepay docketing fees. Smith Bennett, 365 708, 81 895, L.ed.2d 39 (1961) ($4 fee $3 therefrom); Burns Ohio, 360 252, 79 1164, 1209 (1959) ($20 discretionary review appeal).9 In 1892 Congress authorized federal provide disadvantaged wide range relief. Act July 20, 1892, 27 Stat. 252. benefits generous provision, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, been limited, however, proviso added 1910 (36 866) which, amended, reads: 9 'An if trial court certifies writing faith.' 10 'Good faith' has defined requirement present nonfrivolous review. If district such question, ask appeals permission pauperis. must grant renewed after de novo determination disagrees court's good-faith test. both lower refuse permission, unless vacates appeals' finding, pauper's ended merits. See 24(a). It proceedings cognizable whether summary survey (as opposed plenary deliberation) suggests substantial argument could presented. For discussion procedures employed see Coppedge States, 369 438, 82 917, 21 (1962); Hardy 375 277, 84 424, 11 331 (1964). II Our holdings steadily chipped away proposition poor disposed abbreviated inquiries frivolity rather than upon granted paying appellants.10 Eskridge Washington Prison Board, 357 214, 78 1061, 1269 (1958), we held State withhold transcript thereby deny man merely because judge believed own had avoided production questions Ross Schneckloth, 575, 1387, 1547 (1958). Lane Brown, 372 477, 83 768, 892 (1963), decided impoverished prisoner's coram nobis thwarted simply public defender officer lacked merit. Ellis 356 674, 974, 1060 emphasized appellant seeking establish nonfrivolity under 1915 more appointed counsel's private view worthless counsel withdrew reason duty-bound replace him. overrule pauperis, McGann 362 309, 80 725, 734 (1960), judge's certification faith, Johnson 352 565, 77 550, 593 (1957). 12 Moreover, most circuits provided matter course entire panoply relief, including counsel, transcripts, security, showing poverty. And, extent test still enforceable elsewhere, our opinions Coppedge, supra, Hardy, partially attenuated its harsher effects requiring appointment provision transcripts preliminary purpose ascertaining produce worthwhile issues. 13 true, course, involved civil appeals.11 But protection concept 'not limited prosecutions' 'protections extend well matters.' Williams Shaffer, 385 1037, 1039, 87 772, 773, 17 683 (1967). Indeed, last Term, Boddie Connecticut, 401 371, 91 780, 113 (1971), due process grounds divorce impecunious wife she pay relatively small service-of-process progeny least two concerned appeals, condemning substantially less burdensome those below Long Iowa, 192, 362, 290 (1966), Bennett,supra. And nurtured sturdy expansion non-habeas appeals. instant one, Lockhart D'Urso, 408 F.2d 354 (1969), Third aid should minimize courts' treatment based economic circumstances. Id., 355. upshot pronouncements forcefully summarized Black Term: 'In my view, decision Connecticut safely rest crucial foundation—that each belong people country no person courts, either appeal, he fee, finance bond, risk penalty, afford hire attorney.' Meltzer C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 402 954, 955-956, 1624, 1625, 29 124 (1971) (dissent certiorari).12 14 elusive nature standard partly demonstrated number times findings bad faith courts.13 answer continue rectify errors ad hoc basis, even so indigents nonetheless return then—after delay—obtain U.S., 453, S.Ct., 925. Wealthier litigants, hurdles pass obtaining full assignments error. Although might justifiable where requested they too onerous stake deposit. 15 apparent disparate effect classifying appellants according wealth, like race, suspect classification. (1956); Harper Virginia Bd. Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 16 169 (1966). Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 89 1322, 22 600 (1969). Accordingly, classification withstand challenge compelling Respondent offers none repeats discredited maxim paupers' privileges, rights.14 Thus, I remand ground underestimated weight claim. Rather, hold poverty henceforth waive inquire eventually pose fruitful issue, cases, involving fundamental liberties. petitioners docketed complaint relied 1343(3); 2201; 42 1983. Cruz Hauck, Civil Action SA70CA182 (WD Tex., Oct. 30, 1970) (unreported). Rule 8(d). Dec. 3, 28, Misc.No.1964 (CA5, Feb. 1, 1971). Mar. clearly frivolous indicated 142, there limits officials restrict inmates' books. occasions reversed claims Rubio 387 90, 1505, 18 587 (1967); Robinson 527, 888, 966 (1963); Jones 371 25, 124, 96 Gilliam 370 727, 1575, 803 Garrett 662, 1036, 274 Kemp 661, 273 prior cited id., 440-441, n. 918. Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 88 194, 19 41 (1966); Draper Washington, 487, 774, 899 Douglas California, 353, 814, 811 (1963). explicit clause directed Constitution against Federal Government laws incorporated Due Process Clause Amendment. Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 74 693, 98 884 (1954). Blackmun, Allowance Forma Pauperis 2255 Habeas Corpus Cases, 43 F.R.D. 343 Together seven 954 n.*, 1624 n.* (1971). 8. Van Alstyne, Demise Right-Privilege Distinction Constitutional Law, Harv.L.Rev. 1439 (1968).

Category: 0