The October, 1997 issue of the National
Conference of Bankruptcy Judges News reprinted two Orders by U.S. District Court of
Western District of Oklahoma Judge Wayne E. Alley.
In the first 4310 Partnership v. National Properties, Inc., Judge
Alley stated:
“In the seven years I have sat as a district judge, only two or three
times have I been presented a response to plaintiff's report of settlement discussions, as
was filed in this case". The instant response is consistent with prior pleadings in
the case; it contains mutterings about bad faith and personal disputes between
counsel.
“I suppose counsel have a penumbral Constitutional right to regard
each other as schmucks, but I know of no principle that justifies litigation pollution on
account of their personal opinions. This case makes me lament the demise of
duelling.
“I cannot order a duel, and thus achieve a salubrious reduction in
the number of counsel to put up with. However, a summary jury trial is ordered. Setting
will be announced.”
Judge Alley continued his comments concerning professionalism in a second
Order, Earvin J. Krueger and Emma Melinda Krueger v. Pelican Production
Corporation:
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Continue
Trial is denied. If the recitals in the briefs from both sides are accepted at face value,
neither side has conducted discovery according to the letter and spirit of the Oklahoma
County Bar Association Lawyer’s Creed. This is an aspirational creed not subject to
enforcement by this Court, but violative conduct does call for judicial disapprobation at
least.
“If there is a hell to which disputatious, uncivil, vituperative
lawyers go, let it be one in which the damned are eternally locked in discovery disputes
with other lawyers of equally repugnant attributes.”
Submitted by Elizabeth Bruton, Austin, Texas. Reprinted with permission of
For the Record an official publication of the Ohio Judicial Conference.
“I Want My M-TV!”
Attorneys General in 24 states each released a “Top 10” list of frivolous
lawsuits filed by convicted prisoners in their states. Thousands of such suits are filed
annually, nearly all subsidized by taxpayers. Now for the funny part:
• Donald Edward Beaty v. Bury: A death-row inmate
sues corrections officials for taking away his Gameboy electronic game. (Arizona)
• Trice v. Reynolds, et al.: Ex-chef sues because the food was
bad, yet he wanted bigger portions. (Oklahoma)
• Murderer sues for $25,000, claiming a “defective”
haircut resulted in lost sleep, headaches, and chest pains. (New York)
• Young v. Murphy: Prisoner sues for not receiving scheduled parole
hearing, though he was out on escape when the hearing was held. (Mississippi)
• Inmate, calling himself a sports fanatic, complains that, as a
result of cruel and unusual punishment, he was forced to miss the NFL playoffs, especially
between Miami and San Diego, San Diego and Pittsburgh, and Dallas and San Francisco.
(Arkansas)
• Brittaker v. Rowland: Inmate says his meal was in poor condition.
He claims his sandwich was soggy and his cookie was broken. (California)
• Beverly v. Groose: Suit says inmates working in prison law
library should be paid same rate as attorneys. (Missouri)• Jackson
v. Barton: Prisoner who killed five people sues after lightning knocks out the
prison’s TV satellite dish and he must watch network programs, which he says contain
violence, profanity, and other objectionable material. (Florida)
• Brown v. Singletary: Prisoner sues to be given Reeboks, Adidas,
Pony or Avia high-tops rather than inferior brand sneakers issued by prison. (Florida)
• Spradley v. Rathman: Prisoner sues to be served fruit juice at
meals and three pancakes instead of two. (Florida)
The Top Ten Non-Frivolous Lawsuits Filed By Prisoners
1. Prison Guards routinely sexually assault female
prisoners. One officer sexually fondles a prisoner who is receiving medical care in the
infirmary, forces her to perform oral sex, then rapes her. Another officer forces a
prisoner to perform oral sex while she empties trash as part of a work detail. Women
Prisoners v. District of Columbia, D.C. (1994) (post trial order).
2. Prisoners restrained in handcuffs and shackles have
their heads bashed into walls and floors by prison guards, their bodies repeatedly kicked
and hit with batons, their teeth knocked out, their jaws fractured, their limbs broken,
and their bodies burned with scalding water. Madrid v. Gomez, Cal. (1995) (post trial
order).
3. Confined youth are routinely beaten by facility staff,
staff trafficking in illegal drugs is rampant, and sexual relations between staff and
confined youth is commonplace. D.B. v. Commonwealth, Penn. (1993) (consent
decree).
4. Dozens of women. some as young as 16, are forced to
have sex with prison guards, maintenance workers, and a prison chaplain. Many become
pregnant and are coerced by prison staff to have abortions. Cason v. Seckinger, Ga. (1994)
(consent decree).
5. A 17 year-old boy, in jail for failing to pay $73 in
traffic fines, is tortured for 14 hours and finally murdered in his cell by other
prisoners. Another teenage had been beaten unconscious by the same prisoners several days
earlier. Yellen v. Ada County, Idaho (1985) (consent decree).
6. Prison officials ignore warnings by the Commissioner
of Health and fail to implement basic tuberculosis detection and control procedures. Over
400 prisoners are infected in a single prison. Austin v. Dept. of Corrections, Penn.
(1992) (post hearing order).
7. Prison staff engage in sexual relations with female
prisoners and allow male inmates to enter the prisons to engage in forcible intercourse
with the women prisoners. Hamilton v. Morial, La. (1995) (consent decree pending court
approval).
8. Several suicidal children are transferred to the state
mental hospital where they are placed, naked or in paper gowns, in four point restraints,
hands and feet found to the four corners of their beds, and then forcibly injected with
psychotropic drugs as part of “aversive therapy.” Robert K. v. Bell. S.C. (1984)
(consent decree).
9. A prisoner gives birth on the floor of the jail
without medical assistance three hours after informing prison staff that she was in active
labor. Other prisoners have deformed or stillborn babies as a result of receiving almost
no pregnancy- related medical care. Yeager v. Smith and Harris v. McCarthy, Cal. (1989)
(consent decree).
10. Single person cells house four or five prisoners with
mattresses on the floor soaked by overflowing toilets, the drinking water is contaminated
with sewage, and prisoners’ cells are infested with rats. Carty v. Farrelly,
U.S.V.Is. (1994) (consent decree).
This information was complied by the National Prison Project and the
Coalition Against STOP and is a response to the “Top Ten” list of frivolous
lawsuits touted by various attorney generals.
n the past yaer, inmates in California have successfully filed suit to
enforce correctional compliance with California’s Administrative Procedures Act and
prevent the Legislature from violating the single subject rule. Inmate suits have also
challenged censorship rules that were later overturned by the Office of Administrative
Law. Thus, inmate actions serve as an important check to the power of both prison
officials and the Legislature.
The last two items were reprinted from the Lex Loco Website compiled by
David L. Rosendorf, Miami Beach, Florida. You may find his site at tdrose1@yahoo.com
back to TPJ Online
© 1999, Legal Assistants Division State
Bar of Texas |
