descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rick D. Petrick v. David Walters Susan Brimer Loving James D. Bednar Douglas B. Allen Gerald Adams Neal Leader Sandra D. Howard A. Diane Blalock G. Lynn Burch Patrick Crawley Alecia George Steven S. Kerr Jennifer B. Miller Diane L. Slayton Robert M. Whittaker Guy L. Hurst Robert Butkin Rick D Chamberlain Julie Corley Lisa T. Davis Karin Kriz Yasodhara Mohanty Sharon O'ROke Rebecca Pasternik-Ikard Dan M. Peters Wellon B. Poe Rob Ramana Linda K. Soper W. Craig Sutter Andrew Tevington Victor N. Bird Walter W. Roberson Jane F. Wheeler John Crittenden Glen D. Hammonds Gretchen Harris Brita Haughland-Cantrell James R. Johnson Gretchen Zumwalt Kennedy Barry K. Koonce Julie Kramer Joseph L. McCormick IV Douglas F. Price Cooper Brett Robinson Steven K. Snyder L. Michelle Stephens Judy A. Terry Gay Abston Tudor Charles A. Johnson Charles Chapel Gary L. Lumpkin James F. Lane Reta M. Strubhar Ralph B. Hodges Robert E. Lavender Robert D. Simms Rudolph Hargrave Marian P. Opala Alma Wilson Yvonne Kauger Hardy Summers Joseph

Citations: 61 F.3d 916; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 26611; 1995 WL 433167Docket: 95-6135

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; July 24, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

An inmate in Oklahoma appealed the dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various state officials, including the Governor and state court judges. The complaint asserted that his constitutional rights were infringed due to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' decision to not publish certain opinions, which he argued were crucial for challenging his conviction. The trial court, guided by a Magistrate Judge's report, dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that there is no constitutional mandate requiring state appellate courts to publish all decisions. The appellate court highlighted that the determination of which decisions to publish lies within the discretion of state courts. The judgment clarified that while the order is not binding precedent, it may be cited under specific conditions. The decision was affirmed, and a mandate for the order was issued immediately, thereby concluding the appellate process in favor of the state officials.

Legal Issues Addressed

Constitutional Right to Access Courts

Application: The appellant claimed his constitutional right to meaningful access to courts was violated by the non-publication of certain appellate decisions.

Reasoning: Petrick contended that his complaint had significant merit and referenced his constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts.

Discretion of State Courts in Publishing Decisions

Application: The appellate court affirmed that there is no constitutional right to compel state courts to publish their decisions, leaving this to the discretion of the courts.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, stating that Petrick does not have a constitutional right to compel the state appellate court to publish all its decisions.

Dismissal of Frivolous Complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

Application: The trial court dismissed the inmate's civil rights complaint as frivolous, relying on a comprehensive report by a Magistrate Judge.

Reasoning: The trial court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), based on a thorough report by a Magistrate Judge.