 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gaines v. Maynard3/19/1991
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SUMMERS, Justice.
Plaintiffs are American Indian prisoners seeking a writ of mandamus against their Warden. Boiled down, their suit is for the appointment of legal counsel based on an alleged denial of access to the courts. The District Court of Pittsburg County dismissed the case five days after it was filed. On certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed, our sole question is whether the trial court's dismissal was proper. We conclude that at least one of the plaintiffs' claims was properly dismissed, but that the pivotal issue of entitlement to court appointed attorney for alleged lack of access to the courts cannot be fully resolved on the record before us. We vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, reverse in part and affirm in part the order of the trial court, and remand with instructions.
The plaintiffs filed a lengthy application for writ of mandamus, affidavits in forma pauperis, an affidavit by plaintiff Gaines supporting the application, and after the order dismissing the case, a request to amend their application. The application sought the appointment of an attorney to (1) prosecute actions to attack their "convictions", and (2) prosecute yet unfired civil actions on the behalf of the plaintiffs against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and various officials thereof. The application did not seek any relief other than the appointment of an attorney.
I. Access to the Courts and Plaintiffs' Application for Mandamus.
The plaintiffs' filings in the trial court are not clear on this point, but in their petitions in error they state that they seek the appointment of counsel "to perfect pending litigation and pending appeals into the United States Supreme Court". The "appeals" to the United States Supreme Court seek review of actions of this Court in three cases and review of Hedgpath's criminal conviction affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals in 1979.
A court-appointed attorney to collaterally attack Hedgpath's criminal conviction is not appropriate. Counsel may be appointed to assist indigent defendants in post-conviction proceedings, 22 O.S.1981 § 1082, and for collateral proceedings in capital cases, 22 O.S.Supp.1987 § 1360. However, Hedgpath's application did not seek post-conviction relief, and § 1360 is not implicated. We note that Hedgpath was convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree, received a sentence of thirty-five years imprisonment, and had counsel for his appeal. Hedgepath v. State, supra, at [808P.2d 675] note 2. The trial court's denial of a writ of mandamus for a court-appointed attorney to further attack Hedgpath's criminal conviction was correct and is affirmed.
The plaintiffs also requested the appointment of counsel to prosecute appeals of civil cases to the United States Supreme Court and future civil cases against the Department of Corrections and its various officials. The appeals attack the plaintiffs' "convictions" for violating prison rules and regulations, i.e., administrative determinations by prison officials that the plaintiffs were guilty of institutional misconduct. The plaintiffs did not attack the correctness of these institutional misconducts in the mandamus proceeding, and the correctness of those misconduct reports is not before us. The only question before us is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to appointed counsel to assist them with their civil cases.
The plaintiffs at
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|