David Walter Copeland v. Tom Green and Kelly L. York
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Carmelo Etienne (11th Cir. 2024)
- Waseem Daker v. Brian Owens (11th Cir. 2024)
- Grappell v. Carvalho (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2021)
- Alex Higdon v. Fulton County, Georgia, USA (11th Cir. 2018)
- Miller v. Donald (11th Cir. 2008)
- Waseem Daker v. Timothy Ward (11th Cir. 2026)
- John Williams v. Federal Agents of the United States Marshals Servi (11th Cir. 2025)
- Hamman v. University of Central Florida Board of Trustees (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2024)
- Hill v. Johnson (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2023)
- Waseem Daker v. Governor of Georgia (11th Cir. 2022)
- Group Management Corp. (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 2022)
- Group Management Corp. (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 2022)
- Clements v. Apax Partners LLP (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2021)
- Hill v. Johnson (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2021)
- Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2021)
- Ho v. Warren (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2021)
- Daniel Eric Cobble v. U.S. Government (11th Cir. 2020)
- Emrit v. Devos (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2020)
- Singleton v. 13th Circuit Court Judges (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2020)
- Singleton v. 13th Circuit Court Judges (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2020)
- WILLIAMS v. LAND (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 2020)
- Griffin v. Sevatec, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 2016)
- Robert Ree Smith v. United States (11th Cir. 2010)
- Barash v. Kates (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2008)
- United States v. Lorenzo E. Flint, Jr. (11th Cir. 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
David Walter Copeland is a repeat litigant. In March 1990, he filed eight complaints with the district court, and he sought to proceed in forma pauperis in each of these lawsuits. On March 27,1990, the district court dismissed the eight lawsuits as frivolous and ordered that any future complaints submitted by Copeland not be filed unless approved by a judge of the court. This order was the subject of a previous appeal to this court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Following the March 27, 1990, order, Copeland continued to deluge the district court with complaints and other papers. The district court entered an order requiring Copeland to appear and show cause why he should not be sanctioned for this abuse of his access to the court. Following a hearing at which Copeland appeared on his own behalf, the district court entered an order that (1) enjoined Copeland from entering the Hugo L. Black Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, until further order of the court; (2) directed Copeland to deliver any paper that he wished to file with the clerk of the district court through the United States Mail, rather than in person to the courthouse; and (3) directed that any paper thus received from Copeland be marked by the clerk, “Received,” and not marked “Filed,” unless and until the paper was first submitted by the clerk to a judge of the court and approved by the judge for actual filing. It is this order that is the subject of this appeal.
There is no doubt that the district court had the power to devise an injunction to protect itself against Copeland’s abuses. 1 We hold, however, that the provisions barring Copeland from entering the federal courthouse in Birmingham and from delivering documents to the Clerk of Court are impermissibly restrictive of his right to access to that court. In all other respects, the district court’s order complies with constitutional mandates.
Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and the case is REMANDED with instructions that the district court enter an order consistent with this opinion. Copeland’s motions, filed with this court, for the FBI to provide a copy of his complete file, for the U.S. Marshal Service to provide a copy of his complete file, and to require Tom Green to vacate the office of the U.S. Marshal are DENIED.
. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.