Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

904 F.2d 708

Docket No. 89-2064.

Smith v. Wingart

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1990-06-11

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Neitzke v. Williams · Mann v. Smith · Reed v. Sowders

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-06-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2015

3 federal appellate ·

40199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

¶1

Before KEITH and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. POTTER, District Judge.*

ORDER

¶2

Jules Tyrone Smith, a pro se Michigan state prisoner, requests counsel on appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights suit filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and appellant's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

¶3

Smith sued prison officials seeking monetary damages and attorney's fees. His complaint alleged that the defendants limited the number and amount of postage stamps he could receive through the mail in contravention of rules promulgated in accordance with the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. He further alleged that, as a result, he is being denied due process and access to the courts. The district court concluded that the complaint was frivolous and dismissed it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). The court held that Smith had not shown a violation of state law or any actual injury to his rights. See Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir.1986).

¶4

Upon consideration, we conclude that this complaint was properly dismissed, as it lacked any arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). Accordingly, the request for counsel is denied, and the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable John W. Potter, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

/904/f2d/708 · .json · Public domain