Gregory Holt v. Michelle Howard
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20618
8th Cir.2015Background
- Gregory Holt, an incarcerated felon convicted of two felonies and serving life plus concurrent time, requested police records about his victim under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- Arkansas FOIA contains a provision denying incarcerated felons the right to request public records pro se; only their attorneys may request records on their behalf. (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1)(B)).
- Little Rock PD Public Information Officer Michelle Howard denied Holt’s June 2012 request citing that statutory restriction. Holt sued the state and Howard alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the statute constitutional; Holt’s post-judgment motions seeking additional discovery were denied. Holt appealed both the summary judgment and denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it held the statutory classification survives rational-basis review (equal protection) and causes no cognizable denial of access to courts (due process); the court also found no abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — classification barring pro se incarcerated felons from FOIA requests | Holt: the classification targets indigent prisoners and lacks a rational basis; it unlawfully restricts access to records needed for appeals | State: classification is rationally related to legitimate goals—preventing harassment/abuse of victims and conserving government resources; attorneys are ethically constrained from assisting criminal misuse | The statute survives rational-basis review; classification is rationally related to legitimate government interests |
| Due Process — right of access to courts / evidence | Holt: denial of records hindered ability to present new evidence in post-conviction litigation, denying access to courts | State: Holt has not shown actual injury; he previously litigated claims and can obtain records via habeas discovery (Rule 6) if he shows good cause | No actual injury; no denial of access to courts as a matter of law; due process claim fails |
| Discovery request after summary judgment | Holt: should be allowed additional discovery to rebut defendants’ asserted rationales | State: Holt failed to pursue discovery while open and offers no meritorious opposition to justify delay | District court did not abuse discretion denying additional discovery and relief under Rule 60(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis review applies to classifications not involving suspect classes or fundamental rights)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (legislative concern for safety and welfare is cognizable under rational-basis review)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (upholding statutory exclusion of prisoners from state FOIA to conserve resources and prevent frivolous requests)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (right of access to courts does not guarantee the right to litigate effectively once in court)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual-innocence gateway standard for habeas review)
- Williams v. Hobbs, 658 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2011) (prisoner must show actual injury to state a denial-of-access claim)
- Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) (rational-basis review tolerates imperfect legislative lines)