Holloway v. Hornsby

23 F.3d 944, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15593, 1994 WL 247344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 24, 1994
Docket93-03729
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 23 F.3d 944 (Holloway v. Hornsby) 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
Holloway v. Hornsby, 23 F.3d 944, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15593, 1994 WL 247344 (5th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

Allen J. Holloway appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his pro se in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to prison grievance procedures and to being subjected to threats and taunts for filing prior grievances. The district court found the action frivolous. We affirm the dismissal and caution Holloway that further frivolous filings will result in the imposition of the full panoply of sanctions available to the court.

Holloway is an incessant litigator. While confined in the Orleans Parish prison he filed at least 22 informa pauperis actions against Charles C. Foti, Jr., the Orleans Parish sheriff, and other prison officials. He prevailed once; the other actions were dismissed or administratively closed. He currently is incarcerated at Washington Correctional Institute. Since his arrival at WCI, Holloway has filed not less than 19 pro se informa pauper-is complaints against the Louisiana Secretary of Corrections, the Warden, and other WCI officials. Most actions have been dismissed.

At least six of the complaints previously filed allege that Holloway was abused or that he was the subject of retaliation because he had initiated prison grievance procedures. When the instant complaint was reviewed by the magistrate judge three of these six had been dismissed; the remainder are pending.

Holloway persists in repeated filings of the same complaints. In a careful and comprehensive report, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the instant complaint as frivolous. The district court adopted that recommendation.

*946 It is very important to our treasured system of justice that our courts be open to anyone with a case or controversy presenting a justiciable claim. Ready access to our court system, including access by those who are incarcerated, is recognized as a valuable constitutional right, one to be carefully guarded. Complaints about the validity of incarceration or the treatment accorded inmates are entitled to timely and meaningful consideration.

Frivolous cases harm the justice system. The brunt of the harm is borne by those who seek and are entitled to relief from our courts. . This particularly applies to those in custody whose ready access necessarily is limited. When frivolous complaints consume inordinate amounts of scarce judicial resources, valid complaints suffer from delay and all of the negative aspects of delay. The frivolous filings by Holloway poses such a burden on legitimate complaints. We will permit that imposition no longer.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Holloway is admonished that if another frivolous filing by him is brought to the attention of this court we shall consider the full range of sanctions, including directing all district clerks of court in this circuit to reject any filing from him unless he first receives the specific permission to make such filing from a district judge of the subject district or from an active judge of this court.

Judgment AFFIRMED. Admonition issued.

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

Related

Smith v. McDowell
D. Arizona, 2025
Gibson v. Click
N.D. Texas, 2024
Means v. Lyft, Inc.
N.D. California, 2024
Skinner v. GPCH-GP, Inc.
S.D. Mississippi, 2020
Hernandez v. United States
34 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (D. Colorado, 2014)
William Mercer v. USA
514 F. App'x 455 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Hutchinson v. Hahn Ex Rel. Estate of Hahn
402 F. App'x 391 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
David v. Hill
401 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. Texas, 2005)
Hines v. Graham
320 F. Supp. 2d 511 (N.D. Texas, 2004)
Brinson v. McKeeman
992 F. Supp. 897 (W.D. Texas, 1997)
Hicks v. Bexar County, Tex.
973 F. Supp. 653 (W.D. Texas, 1997)
Young v. Corbin
889 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 F.3d 944, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15593, 1994 WL 247344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-hornsby-ca5-1994.