# Curtis W. Morrison v. Judge Willie Lipscomb and Judge Harold Ryan, Judge Adam Shakoor and Does I Thru V

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · June 8, 1989 · 877 F.2d 463

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479149

## Case

- **Full name:** Curtis W. MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judge Willie LIPSCOMB and Judge Harold Ryan, Defendants, Judge Adam Shakoor and Does I Thru V, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 8, 1989
- **Citations:** 877 F.2d 463; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 8117; 1989 WL 59932
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wellford
- **Judges:** Engel, Wellford, Boggs
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479149

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a chief judge’s declaration of a moratorium on the issuance of writs of restitution was an administrative, not judicial, act, because the moratorium was a general order not connected to any particular litigation that did not alter the rights and liabilities of any…
- finding that the chief judge’s moratorium on the issuance of writs of restitution was an administrative, not judicial, act because the moratorium was general and not connected to any particular case
- finding that orders “instruct[ing] court personnel on how to process the petitions made to the court” are not judicial acts
- holding that a clerk implementing an order at direction of the judge was a ministerial act

## Opinion text

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur with Judge Boggs’ reasoning and the result reached in this case. I write separately to emphasize that the “moratorium” involved in this case has clear establishment of religion implications because of the significant length of the period involved in which Morrison, and others similarly situated, were barred by Judge Shakoor administratively and effectively from access to the courts and from a remedy clearly granted by the law. The period involved constituted approximately eighteen days, nearly five percent of the year. It not only had establishment of religion implications, it involved significant deprivation of court process, but it also may have constituted a taking, -without process, of Morrison’s property or property interests.
Declaring a court holiday, even for a period of a few days, I believe, has little real or practical significance that would be of any constitutional concern. That is not our case, and I therefore join the opinion of Judge Boggs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479149. Public record. Not legal advice.