Justice Turned On Its Head
Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, A Bad Mother&&#!@, Shut Your Mouth!!
Purpose Of In Forma Pauperis Statutes
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts. (internal citations omitted). Toward this end, § 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 324 (1989). U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham, the subject of this post, has a long and documented history or pattern and practice of arbitrary denials of in forma pauperis motions. See http://mmason.freeshell.org/ifp.html. A complaint of judicial misconduct was filed against Judge Graham for abitrarily denying ifp motions on 18 different occasions without offering either of the legal reasons allowed for denying in forma pauperis status. See Neitzke, at 490 U.S. 324(“§ 1915(d) authorizes federal courts to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis ‘if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.‘“) However, Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, who is charged with with “investigating” allegations of misconduct does not agree that a pattern and practice of intentionally disregarding the law is judicial misconduct. In Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 05-0020, Judge Edmondson stated:
In this complaint Mr. Mason, although worded differently that his previous complaints, re-makes the allegation that Judge Graham denied him access to the courts by summarily denying a string of motions for in forma pauper status and that Judge Graham did not identify either of the only two reasons allowed for such denial.
The allegations of this Complaint are “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling” and “successive”. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 16 of Title 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(I)(ii) and Addendum III Rules 4(b)(2) and 18(e), this Complaint is DISMISSED.
Judge Edmondson disagrees with his own Judicial Conference whose guidance he is obligated to follow who has clearly stated:
[A] judge’s pattern and practice of arbitrarily and deliberately disregarding prevailing legal standards and thereby causing expense and delay to litigants may be misconduct. However, the characterization of such behavior as misconduct is fraught with dangers to judicial independence. Therefore, a cognizable misconduct complaint based on allegations of a judge not following prevailing law or the directions of a court of appeals in particular cases must identify clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, that is, clear and convincing evidence of a judge’s arbitrary and intentional departure from prevailing law based on his or her disagreement with, or willful indifference to, that law.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Judicial Conference, Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, See http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jcdopinions108.pdf
.
Introduction
Judge Donald L. Graham, “Teflon Don”, and the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeal, abused the in forma pauperis to stop an appeal, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, from going forward. Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664, an unpublished opinion, has been dubbed the “appeal from hell” for its lawlessness, dishonesty, and ingenuity in attempting to defeat an appeal. This remarkable story, “Eleventh Circuit Case No. 01-13664: The Appeal From Hell“, is fully documented at:
https://mcneilmason.wordpress.com/eleventh-circuit-case-no-01-13664-the-appeal-from-hell/. This particular post documents how U.S. Dist. Judge Donald L. Graham and the Eleventh Circuit abused the in forma pauperis statutes, 28 U.S.C. §1915, in order to deny appellate review of allegations of misconduct against Judge Graham. These allegations included, but definitely are not limited to, the following:
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting law.
- Refusing to rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction that had been pending for more than 17 months.
- Allowing scores of motions and filings to languish without being decided.
- Usurping legal authority. Allowing a Magistrate to issue an injunction prohibiting direct communication with the Highlands County Government. Additionally, prohibiting Marcellus Mason from making public records request under Florida Law directly to Highlands County.
- Violating clearly established law and the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by issuing pre-filing injunctions without notice and opportunity to be heard.
- Abuse of the criminal contempt procedure. Judge Graham took a clearly invalid sua sponte issued pre-filing injunction and made it the basis of a criminal contempt complaint and conviction.
- Lying and intentionally misrepresenting material facts.
- Ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court denying access to the courts by refusing to state any reason for denying IFP applications.
- Awarding attorneys’ fees against an indigent plaintiff in total
disregard of the law and the United States Supreme Court.
This post is part of an overall pattern and practice of using extreme measures and lawlessness to conceal the misconduct of Judge Graham. See Documented Allegations of Misconduct. Incidentally, while not relevant to the discussion of this post, the Eleventh Circuit’s Chief Judge, J.L. Edmondson, has fought tooth and nail to keep from addressing a documented pattern and practice of disregarding well established law by Judge Graham. See mmason.freeshell.org/372c or mmason.freeshell.org/edmondson/edmondson. Judge Graham’s misconduct and Judge’s Edmondson’s defense of Judge Graham’s misconduct are fully documented in the following judicial misconduct complaints:
No. 01-0054; No. 01-0054-Judicial Council; No. 01-0068; No. 01-68-Judicial Council; INTERVENING MANDAMUS; No. 02-0006; No. 02-0006 -Judicial Council; No. 02-0029; No. 02-0034; No. 02-0052; No. 02-0059; COMPLAINTS FILED IN 2005; No. 05-0008; No. 05-0011; No. 05-0012; No. 05-0013; No. 05-0020; No. 05-0021.
The following complaints of judicial misconduct are currently pending against Judge Graham:
Complaint | Status |
Judicial Conference |
pending |
Reconsideration |
pending |
June 25, 2008 |
pending |
July 9, 2008 |
pending |
July 15, 2008 |
pending |
Material Facts
On February 22, 1999, Judge Edward B. Davis allowed Marcellus Mason to file a lawsuit without paying the filing fees, or in forma pauperis, “IFP”, due to indigency. See Order, (D.E. #3)(“Having examined the Plaintiff’s Motion and Financial Affidavit, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated his inability to pay fees or give security in this matter, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court also finds that Plaintiff appears to have brought this action in good faith.;”). Judge Davis retired and the case was assigned to Judge Donald L. Graham. The case was ultimately dismissed on June 20, 2001.
The case was dismissed on June 20, 2001. (D.E. 791).
A Notice of Appeal was filed on June 25, 2001. (D.E. 795)
The case was assigned Case No. 01-13664 by the Eleventh Circuit.
A motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis was filed on July 13, 2001. (D.E. #799). A second motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed on August 10, 2001. (D.E. #811).
On September 20, 2001, Judge Graham’s Magistrate, Frank Lynch, Jr. denied both pending motions [(D.E. #799), (D.E. #811)] to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. #877). This order states:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon an Order of Reference from the Honorable Donald L. Graham, dated September 10, 2001, and this Court having reviewed the aforementioned Motions and the pertinent portions of the record, and noting that in other actions filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiff’ s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos. 00-14116, 00-14201 , 00-14202, 00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff’s previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference, and being otherwise advised in the premises , it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are DENIED .
See (D.E. #877).
On December 12, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit denied an in forma pauperis motion by simply asserting:
Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED because appellant has not truthfully provided this Court with information concerning his ability to pay the filing and docketing fees. See Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that right to proceed IFP is not absolute, but rather is left to the sound discretion of the court.
See Case No. 01-13664 IFP Order, pg. 1.
Imagine how you would feel if someone accused you of something and refused to provide facts to support their allegation! This is anti-American. Upon receiving the order denying IFP, the appellant, Mason filed a motion for clarification begging the Eleventh Circuit for the factual basis for its assertion that “appellant has not truthfully provided this Court with information concerning his ability to pay the filing and docketing fees.” However, the Eleventh Circuit refused to provide facts to support its conclusion and simply stated:
Appellant has filed a “motion for reconsideration and clarification,” which is construed as a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order dated December 12, 2001, denying leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Upon reconsideration, appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
See Case No. 01-13664 IFP Order, pg. 2.
Prior Approval
As stated above, Mason was allowed initially allowed to proceed in forma pauperis by Judge Edward Davis. See Order, (D.E. #3). It is well established that once a party has been allowed to proceeded in forma pauperis in the district court, the party is allowed to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis automatically unless the district judge finds that the party is proceeding in bad faith. In Starks v. State Of Florida, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26270 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit, Judges J.L. Edmondson, R. Lanier Anderson, and Rosemary Barkett, presiding, granted in forma pauperis on appeal where the district court found that the underlying complaint or lawsuit was frivolous. Fed.R.App.P. Rule 24(a) states:
Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis
(a) Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.
(3) Prior Approval. A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless the district court–before or after the notice of appeal is filed–certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. In that event, the district court must state in writing its reasons for the certification or finding.
The Notes to Fed.R.App.P. Rule 24(a) state:
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES–1967:
“The second paragraph permits one whose indigency has been previously determined by the district court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without the necessity of a redetermination of indigency, while reserving to the district court its statutory authority to certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and permitting an inquiry into whether the circumstances of the party who was originally entitled to proceed in forma pauperis have changed during the course of the litigation. Cf. Sixth Circuit
Rule 26.”
A string of appellate courts have parroted the provisions of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- “Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs our own in forma pauperis practice, permits any litigant who has been allowed to proceed in an action in the District Court in forma pauperis to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless the District Court certifies that the ‘appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed” McKelton v. Bruno , 428 F.2d 718; 138 U.S.App.D.C. 366 ¶4(D.C. Cir. 1970).
- “”If a litigant is granted i.f.p. status in a district court, and if that status is not revoked in the district court, the litigant, upon filing a notice of appeal, continues on appeal in i.f.p. status. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)” Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181n.2(2nd Cir. 1996).
- “Normally, when a litigant is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by the district court, this status carries over in the Court of Appeals. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). However, if the district court dismisses the case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), the litigant must reapply to this Court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, since a finding of frivolousness is viewed as a certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a); Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). Dismissal of a complaint by the district court under Rule 12(b)(6) or any other rule does not negate the in forma pauperis status. Because the district court dismissed the complaint using the language of Rule 12(b)(6), and not as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), there was no need to again grant Oatess leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428 n.4(3rd Cir. 1990).
- “[W]e are mindful of the provisions of Fed.R.App.P. 24(a) concerning appeals in forma pauperis. This rule provides that a party who has been permitted to proceed in the district court in forma pauperis ‘may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization unless, * * * the district court shall certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or shall find that the party is otherwise not entitled so to proceed, in which event the district court shall state in writing the reasons for such certification or finding.'” Liles v. The South Carolina Department Of Corrections, 414 F.2d 612¶14(4th Cir. 1969). “In case the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, the required written statement must show not merely that the appeal lacks merit, but that the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958). Additionally, an appeal is properly denied as lacking the requisite good faith where there is a clear indication that the conduct of an indigent appellant amounts to a deliberate harassment of the courts or an intentional abuse of the judicial process” id. n.1.
- “(1) a district court may certify that an IFP appeal is not taken in good faith under section 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a); (2) if the trial court does so, it is required under Rule 24(a) to set forth in writing the reasons for its certification;” Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 ¶23(5th Cir. 1997).
- “Under Fed.R.App.P. 24, a party granted ifp status in the district court retains that status on appeal unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith, in which case the district court must state in writing the reasons for the certification.” Williams v. Shettle, 914 F.2d 260, ¶4(7th Cir. 1990).
- “Thus, it is clear that a party may appeal in forma pauperis without making application for a certificate when he has already been permitted by the district court to proceed in forma pauperis. The only time a party is prevented from taking an appeal is when the trial court, before or after the notice of appeal is filed, certifies in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith. When this occurs the petitioner may still seek a certificate from this court or the Supreme Court.”
Peterson v. UNITED STATES of America, 467 F.2d 892 (8th Cir. 1972). - “”Petitioner renews his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. This motion is moot, however, because Petitioner is already entitled to proceed in forma pauperis: Petitioner proceeded in forma pauperis in the district court, and the district court never certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith or found that the Petitioner was otherwise not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); Singleton v. Hargett 1999 WL 606712 at *1 n.2 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion) (dismissing as moot petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the court of appeals). “Because he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, and because there has been no change to that designation, Petitioner retains his in forma pauperis status on appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).” Id. See also Celske v. Edwards, 165 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that the petitioner retained his leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the court of appeals because the district court had made no certification of bad faith). Rhodes v. True, No. 99-3026 (10th Cir. 1999).
There is no finding by Judge Graham that the appeal was taken in bad faith, consequently the law was disregarded. Judge Graham’s order denying in forma pauperis states the following:
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon an Order of Reference from the Honorable Donald L. Graham, dated September 10, 2001, and this Court having reviewed the aforementioned Motions and the pertinent portions of the record, and noting that in other actions filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiff’ s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos . 00-14116, 00-14201 , 00-14202, 00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff’s previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference, and being otherwise advised in the premises , it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis are DENIED.
See (D.E. #877).
The Eleventh Circuit, without offering a scintilla of proof, simply asserts:
Appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED because appellant has not truthfully provided this Court with information concerning his ability to pay the filing and docketing fees. See Moreland v. Wharton, 899 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that right to proceed IFP is not absolute, but rather is left to the sound discretion of the court.
See Case No. 01-13664 IFP Order, pg. 1. Notions of fundamental fairness without recitation to the law would require the Eleventh Circuit to support its conclusion that the “appellant has not truthfully provided this Court with information concerning his ability to pay the filing and docketing fees“. Consequently, Mason filed a motion for rehearing demanding to know the factual basis for the Eleventh Circuit’s conclusion that Mason had been untruthful. The Eleventh Circuit absolutely refused to provide a factual basis to support its conclusion.
Appellant has filed a “motion for reconsideration and clarification,” which is construed as a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order dated December 12, 2001, denying leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Upon reconsideration, appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.
See Case No. 01-13664 IFP Order, pg. 2.
Disregarding Good Faith Requirement
Judge Donald L. Graham and the Eleventh Circuit both ignored the good faith requirement as their denials do not assert that the appeal was not taken in good faith much less provide any proof that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
A petitioner demonstrates good faith when he seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). “Dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint is appropriate when the claim is based on ‘indisputably meritless legal theory or factual allegations are clearly baseless.'” Heghmann v. Indorf, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 767,*;324 B.R. 415; (1st Cir. 2005). “[I]f a judge is convinced, as the judge was here, that there is no substantial question for review and an appeal is frivolous and therefore futile, it is his duty to certify that the appeal sought to be taken in forma pauperis is not taken in good faith.” Parsell v. UNITED STATES of America, 218 F.2d 232 ¶25(5th Cir. 1955). In Johnson v.Dencek, 868 F.2d 969 (7th Cir. 1989), the court remanded the case for a determination that the appeal was not taken in good faith where the district failed to make the determination. In Johnson, the court ultimately allowed the plaintiff to appeal in forma pauperis notwithstanding the district findings of frivolousness that was predicated upon the plaintiff’s attorney conclusion that the lawsuit lacked merit.
Lack of Respect For the Supreme Court
Both Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit have disregarded the Supreme Court by making denials of in forma pauperis without providing any factual support for their decisions. This type of behavior is commonly referred to as a summary denial. The U.S. Supreme Court has condemned summary denials of in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court has stated that a court cannot deny in forma pauperis by simply making conclusory statements without stating supporting facts. In Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 61 (1971), the Supreme Court opined:
The benefits of this generous provision [in forma pauperis], now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, have been limited, however, by the important proviso added in 1910 (36 Stat. 866) which, as now amended, reads: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” “Good faith” has been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a nonfrivolous question for review. If the district court certifies that an appeal would not present such a question, then an indigent may ask the court of appeals for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. That court must grant the renewed motion if after a de novo determination it disagrees with the district court’s application of the good faith test. If both lower courts refuse permission, then, unless this Court vacates the court of appeals’ finding, the pauper’s appeal is ended without a hearing on the merits. See Fed.Rule App.Proc. 24(a). It is important that, in all of these proceedings, the only cognizable issue is whether a summary survey (as opposed to plenary deliberation) suggests that a substantial argument could be presented…Our holdings have steadily chipped away at the proposition that appeals of the poor can be disposed of solely on summary and abbreviated inquiries into frivolity, rather than upon the plenary consideration granted paying appellants.