Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Whiteside v. Wilkinson
Citation: 3 F. App'x 372Docket: No. 00-3902
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; January 31, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs Mary C. Whiteside, Norman V. Whiteside, Debra Stafford, Delayne D. Whiteside, and Regina B. Holland appeal a district court's dismissal of their civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. The district court granted pauper status solely to Mary, as the others did not apply for it or pay the filing fee, leading to the conclusion that only Mary initiated the action. The complaint alleged that Norman was denied parole in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, impacting the plaintiffs' familial association with him. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the action should be considered as brought by all of them and argue that the district court erred in its application of § 1915(e) and in its dismissal. However, the court held that it only had jurisdiction over Mary since she was the only recognized party in the litigation. The appellate court reviewed the claims, noting that while Mary included a First Amendment retaliation claim, she failed to establish that she suffered an adverse action due to Norman's denial of parole, nor did she demonstrate that the denial was motivated by her actions. Additionally, the court found that Norman, as a convicted prisoner in Ohio, had no inherent constitutional right to parole, nor did Mary have a right to demand his parole. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the original dismissal was appropriate under the standards of § 1915(e).