Hal Irwin v. R. H. Burson

389 F.2d 63
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 6, 1968
Docket24894_1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 389 F.2d 63 (Hal Irwin v. R. H. Burson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hal Irwin v. R. H. Burson, 389 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1968).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a prisoner in the Georgia penitentiary, has been making extended and extensive efforts to sue certain officials of the Georgia State prison system, including the prison doctor, for damages for personal injuries he claims to have sustained when he allegedly was x-rayed without his consent. In the action now on appeal, Irwin filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He alleged that he had been denied access to the Georgia State Courts (particularly in Fulton County) for the effective prosecution of his suit against the officials above mentioned. From the pro se pleadings, as well as letters written to the District Judge after he had denied relief, it is evident that the gravamen of Irwin’s complaint is that he was not permitted to appear in person before the Georgia trial court for various hearings and that he could not ascertain the status of his case.

We have before us a copy of the twenty-nine page typewritten opinion, not yet officially reported, in the case of Irwin v. Arrendale, 159 S.E.2d 719, in which the Georgia Court of Appeals, on November 16, 1967, held that this prisoner has a right to pursue his damage suit against Dr. Arrendale, Medical Director of the Prison, in the State Courts. Any idea that this appellant might have been denied access to the Courts of Georgia is thus thoroughly dissipated.

In any event, we think the District Court committed no error in declining to permit the petition to be filed in forma pawperis, Edgerly v. Kennelly, 7 Cir., 1954, 215 F.2d 420, cert. den. 348 U.S. 938, 75 S.Ct. 359, 99 L.Ed. 735; Weller v. Dickson, 9 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 598.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Terry Ray Taylor v. M. M. (Hoot) Gibson
529 F.2d 709 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Vincente Gatica Startti v. United States
415 F.2d 1115 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Willard v. United States
299 F. Supp. 1175 (N.D. Mississippi, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
389 F.2d 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hal-irwin-v-r-h-burson-ca5-1968.