Taylor v. Steele
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Paul Rodger Weller v. Fred H. Dickson, Andrew Emmitte Pope v. Richard A. McGee (9th Cir. 1963)
- Noble v. Wilkinson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1968)
- Fallis v. United States (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1967)
- Samurine v. United States (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1967)
- Rhodes v. Houston (United States District Court, Nebraska 1966)
- Heft v. Parker (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1966)
- Ellis v. Parker (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1966)
- Robert L. Cole v. Lavern Smith, Bernard Danner and Allen Vogel (8th Cir. 1965)
- James G. Carey v. Dr. Russell O. Settle (8th Cir. 1965)
- John Edward Reece v. The State of Washington and B. J. Rhay, as Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington (9th Cir. 1962)
- William Clyde Wright v. B. J. Rhay, Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla, Washington (9th Cir. 1962)
- Herbert Harrison Loum v. Honorable Mell G. Underwood, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Eastern Division, Southern District of Ohio (6th Cir. 1959)
- James I. Caviness v. William B. Somers, United States Marshal for Middle District of North Carolina (4th Cir. 1956)
- Maynard Dare Parsell and Melvin West Parsell v. United States (5th Cir. 1955)
- Higgins v. Steele (8th Cir. 1952)
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
This is an appeal in forma pauperis from an order denying a petition of the appellant, an indigent federal prisoner, for leave to commence in forma pauperis a civil action for damages against the Warden of the United States Medical ‘Center for Federal Prisoners.at Springfield, Missouri, and members of his staff, upon the grounds that appellant’s transfer by the Attorney General to that institution was illegal, that the appellees are therefore liable for false imprisonment, and that they have subjected appellant to medical treatment without his consent.
This Court appointed counsel to represent the appellant on this appeál. His counsel *853 has, by brief and oral argument, done all that is humanly possible to make it appear that the appellant in his proposed complaint has stated a meritorious claim against the appellees, and should have been permitted to proceed against them in forma pauperis.
For the purposes of this appeal we assume, without deciding, that the order appealed from is appealable and that the complaint which was attached to the appellant’s petition was not subject to dismissal for insufficiency of statement. It is our opinion, however, that this appeal is without merit and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the appellant to commence in forma pauperis an action for damages against the appellees. We find nothing in Section 1915, Title 28, U.S.C.A. which requires á District Court to permit a federal prisoner to sue in forma pauperis those in whose custody he has been placed by the Attorney General for confinement and medical care.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.