222 F. Supp. 15 | E.D. Va. | 1963
In this action Theodore X. A. Sewell again seeks his immediate release from Lorton Reformatory, injunctive relief and damages against the named defendants in the amount of $6,000,000.00.
Leave was granted to file the petition in forma pauperis. Each of the defendants responded by filing their respective motions to dismiss.
Upon consideration of the pleadings thus filed, the Court is of the opinion the petition should be DISMISSED as to all defendants, and an appropriate order will be accordingly entered.
Sewell,
The alleged mistreatment and denial of civil rights here complained of are substantially the same as set forth in the suits dismissed by the Court of Appeals and may not again be made the basis for further hearing, except in the event the assurances given the Court of Appeals in that suit are not complied with.
Sewell does not allege any breach of these assurances. He centers this phase of his complaint upon the spurious contention that he did not authorize his court-appointed counsel to consent to the dismissal and that he is not bound by his action.
If Sewell has any right to complain about the dismissal of these suits by the Court of Appeals, and we do not think he has, his complaint should be addressed to that Court and not to this one.
Notwithstanding the said dismissal, Sewell and Watson were permitted to file another complaint
Sewell has been shown more consideration in re his claimed deprivation of civil rights while confined in the Lorton Reformatory than a person is legally entitled to ask and receive,
Sewell’s remaining prayer, that this Court order the institution of an immediate law suit against the named defendants for damages in the sum of $6,000,000.00 for conspiracy to deny him the equal protection of the law in Appeal Cases No. 8582 and No. 8583, is not only novel but entirely without merit. Some of the named defendants are not within the jurisdiction of this Court; some are officials of the Department of Justice, acting within the scope of their respective offices; some took no part in the appeal. The complaint does not state a cause of action as to any of the defendants.
Sewell also requests this Court to appoint him counsel to assist him in the prosecution of his complaint. The appointment of counsel in a civil action is not of right. It lies within the sound discretion of the Court. This Court and the Court of Appeals both appointed counsel to assist Sewell in the presentation of his complaint. He now wants court-appointed counsel to assist him in suing the named defendants, including his former court-appointed counsel, for monetary damages. The prayer will be DENIED. To do otherwise would be to make a mockery of this Court.
Let copies of this memorandum opinion, and the order dismissing the complaint, be mailed to the petitioner, the defendant George Blow, and counsel for the other named defendants.
. Watson is not a party plaintiff in this action and is not considered as such. The petition was neither signed nor filed by Watson. Sewell has no authority to represent him in the premises.
. Tliat complaint did not refer to the dismissal of the appeal or seek leave to institute a suit for damages.
. “It has been pointed out repeatedly that prisoners suffer a limitation of many privileges and rights, Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948), even a limitation of the right to bring civil actions. Seo Tabor v. Hardwick, 224 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1955), and reference therein to the recognition of the fact that, under the laws of many states, imprisonment destroys the legal capacity of penitentiary inmates to sue.” Childs v. Pegelow, 321 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1963).