Petition — White v. Green

Supreme Court brief1980

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ee ‘BP morems cout & NT

FILED

79-920 © DEC 12 1979

PP MICHABL RODAK, JR., CLERR

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1979

No. 79-5519

CARL WHITE,

Petitioner,

VS.

CLOVIS CARL GREEN;JR.,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

JOHN ASHCROFT

Attorney General

MICHAEL H. FINKELSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

(314) 751-3321

Attorneys for Petitioner

E. L. MenvenBALL, INc., 926 Cherry Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106, (816) 421-8030

6 OE Ske me = A RR RRS ar sc OR TI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pe 1 1

Jurisdictional Statement .............................. letisaanaicheskabidess 2

Questions Presented for Review ..................2.2--..:c---00000---- 3

eg EET )

Neen sci sesnpneneseeaconanereensesces 8

ESSE ee EC 13

Nee dswinnesvaversnscvovsensacissrnnsse 20

Argument—

EEE 22

II. Is This Suit Barred by Res Judicata? ................ 24

III. Has Mr. White’s Seventh Amendment Right

to a Jury Trial Been Violated? ~.......0........ 30

ES EEE SS SES 33

Appendix A—Opinion and Denials, U.S.C.A., Eighth

Neen cass secovensnachendactnonentessenesenecons Al

Appendix B—Order and Memorandum of the U. S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,

SESE Ag

Appendix C—Civil Rights Complaint As a Class Ac-

Es Ee DAG ome Al2

Appendix D—Judge Elmo B. Hunter’s “Memorandum

and Order”, No. 79-4055-CV-C ooo. eeeceeeceeseees Al6

Appendix E—Report and Recommendation of the U. S.

Magistrate That the Cause Be Dismissed As ‘“Mali-

cious” Under the Provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) A47

Appendix F—Civil Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C.

ec aceceaccshunansenessusesoseauecnseese A62

Appendix H—Motion for Rehearing In Banc (Filed

SU RS a cr i raleecmbaycgapninoeilng A68

Appendix I—Motion for Rehearing En Banc (Filed

I I se ons cs aouiannvainiee A71

Table of Authorities

CasEs

Bergman v. Stein, 404 F Supp. 287 (S.D. N.Y. 1975) ... 23

Blackburn v. Fisk University, 443 F.2d 121 (6th Cir.

BN cs iad seacaseistaces cesta crbdahes heb serra sbcanegnn cues homens Sai 23

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast

Line Railroad Co., 383 F.2d 225 (D.C. Cir. 1967) ........ 28

Burch v. Carmody, 377 F.Supp. 1157 (E.D. N.Y. 1974) 32

Carr v. United States, 507 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1975) ........ 28

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S.

501. 66 S.Ct. 716, 92 L.Ba. S08 (1946) ..............:............. 29

Cook v. Cox, 357 F.Supp. 120 (E.D. Va, 1973) ................ 32

Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d

BO II tens sioetihb ect cat tatinchstchpocsraiieteaphiniasdansvonwasnteouincenocbe 32

Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1977) .................. 32

Ellingburg v. King, 490 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1974) ........ 23

Ford v. Briev, 71 F.R.D. 195 (E.D. Wis. 1976) ................ 31

Green v. Camper, No. 79-4055-CV-C (August 16, 1979)

alin : suialeielblasariiihschaaipiaiatiecesbuiieastimlgecceataasee aay ee

Green v. Duram, No. 78-422-CV-C (W.D. Mo. Novem-

OE ile DIP saesivsctecteca ete Ration iateccelicalcbdchces A haces hapacetctetsasanti 15

Green v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D. 680 (W.D. Mo. 1976) ........ 13, 14

Green v. White, 589 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1970) -.............. 24

Green v. Wyrick, 414 F.Supp. 343 (W.D. Mo. 1976) ..... 13

Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976) .... 14

Hall v. Tower Land and Investment Co., 512 F.2d 41

NB RRC RE AN A ero Ts ar A nd OT 28

ITI

In the Matter of the Alleged Contumacious Conduct of

Clovis Carl Green, Jr., 586 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1978) 14

Prosunier v. Navarette, ........ it eaeeonee , 98 S.Ct. 855

I ead dosetiselnnsiss caceuahnni pan orleipiniedssdactcbpatentvanennninncadonanhemrpednske 32

Richards v. Smoltich, 359 F.Supp. 9 (N.D. Ill. 1973) ..... 32

Rose v. Mitchell, ........ ener , 99 S.Ct. 2993 (1979) .... 19

Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 168

Uo. 4, 36 SA. 26, 42 Lok. S06 (1687) ........................ 27

United States v. Green, No. 178-0413-01-CR-C-W-3

OP Be RP Se Es. |.) 14

Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978) ............ 18

STATUTES AND RULES

SURI i MNT ic chera aacshccehcsna tn eanphicranaetcnkinlnndevisaineee 2

Br I oii esstenerersp ip eroriccaresannacssienainiseinressanena 1,2, 3,4

te ets scsitsrngdersientenbrvduiey alongs yionienientiiiammataiocs 2

gf oe | en 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 22, 23, 25, 32

U.S. Supreme Court Bute 19(5) .........0:.2-.-....2 24

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U. S. Constitution, First Amendment ......................2-.------+ 6, 27

U. S. Constitution, Seventh Amendment .............. 5, 11, 30, 31

U. S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment .................... 6

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1979

No. 79-5519

CARL WHITE,

Petitioner, —

vs.

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR.,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Carl White, Superintendent of the Missouri Training

Center for Men at Moberly, Missouri, petitioner herein, by

Attorney General John Ashcroft, State of Missouri, respect-

fully requests that this Court issue a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment and opinion of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered on July

13, 1979; both parties’ motions for rehearing were denied on

September 19, 1979.

REPORTS OF OPINIONS BELOW

On July 13, 1979, the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit issued an Opinion affirming in part

and reversing in part the District Court’s “Order and

Memorandum” which dismissed Mr. Green’s § 1983 class

action lawsuit because frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Both parties filed motions for rehearing and rehearing en

bane which the Eighth Circuit denied on September 19,

1979. To the best of Mr. White’s knowledge neither the

July Opinion nor the September denials have been pub-

lished. Reproduction of the Opinion and denials will be

found in Appendix A.?

The Order and Mermorandum of the United States Dis-

trict Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern

Division, per the Honorable John F. Nangle, issued on

October 26, 1978, dismissing Mr. Green’s § 1983 lawsuit

because frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),

is to the best of Mr. White’s knowledge not published and

will be found in Appendix B. It is this Order from which

Mr. Green took an appeal to the Eighth Circuit whose

Opinion, in turn, is sought to be reviewed and reversed,

in part.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) states that cases in the courts

of appeals may be reviewed by this Court

By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of

any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after

rendition of judgment or decree... .

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) states that

Any other appeal or any writ of certiorari intended

to bring any judgment or decree in a civil action, suit

or proceeding before the Supreme Court for review

1. On October 29, 1979, counsel for Mr. White mailed a letter

to the Clerk of the Eighth Circuit requesting that he certify and

transmit to this Court the entire record in this case. On October

30, 1979, the Eighth Circuit Clerk refused the request stating that

this Court had instructed him not to forward “transcripts of the

proceedings” unless requested. Only those documents deemed

particularly important will be included in this Petition.

shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after

the entry of such judgment or decree. ...

This case involves Mr. Green’s claim that while in-

carcerated at the Moberly prison for approximately six

weeks in 1976 he was denied his federal constitutional right

to practice his so-called religion. District Court Judge

Nangle dismissed the complaint upon concluding that it was

frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). On

appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in

part after determining that certain claims made by Mr.

Green did state a cause of action and ordered an evidentary

hearing in regard to them. This Opinion was issued on

July 13, 1979; the court denied both parties’ motions for

rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 19, 1979.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision is properly sought to be re-

viewed by a request of certiorari to that Court and is made

well within ninety days from September 19, 1979. Con-

sequently, no extension of time in which to file this Pe-

tition has been sought.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

On October 24, 1978, Mr. Green, a caucasian male, filed

a “Civil Rights Complaint as a Class Action” in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

(See, Appendix C). The suit was brought under the aegis

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint Mr. Green asseverated

that he was “a minister of God with the HUMAN AWARE-

NESS UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH....” Mr. Green fur-

ther claimed that he was incarcerated at the Moberly

prison, under the custody of Mr. White, in 1976 and during

that period of time there were many inmates who were

members of Mr. Green’s so-called church but who were not

allowed to practice the tenets of the so-called religion. Mr.

Green claimed that Mr. Whiite’s refusal to allow members

of the so-called church to practice certain claimed rituals

was sought to be redressed, on a class action basis, because

a violation of those inmates’ federal constitutional rights.

As relief Mr. Green requested that the suit be allowed to

proceed as a class action, that the “Human Awareness

Universal Life Church” be deemed a legitimate religion

and that, inter alia, Mr. White “pay money damages of

$1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) to [Mr. Green] for the

violation of his freedom of religion.”

On October 26, 1978, Judge Nangle, without any notice

to Mr. White, dismissed the lawsuit because frivolous. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed

in part and reversed in part. In that Opinion the Eighth

Circuit concluded that Mr. Green could not maintain a

class action because he was not a member of the class,

but that the Complaint contained individual claims relating

to Mr. Green which were not barred by the doctrine of

res judicata and remanded the case for “an evidentary

hearing” in which inquiry was to be

. .. Strictly limited to whether defendant White, dur-

ing the brief period in 1976 that Green was incarcer-

ated at Moberly prevented Green personally from par-

ticipating in church worship services and bible study

classes, from wearing long hair and a beard as an in-

cident of the exercise of his religion, or from distribut-

ing the religious literature of his church and, if so,

whether Green’s civil rights were thereby violated.

Based upon these facts the following questions emerge:

1. Has Mr. Green presented individual claims in his

Complaint or is the lawsuit exclusively a class action which

Mr. Green may not bring as a representative party because

he is not a member of the class he himself has defined?

2. Assuming, ad arguendo, that the Complaint contains

individual claims which Mr. Green may litigate, is he barred

from so doing by res judicata? Stated more specifically, is

this lawsuit the product of conscious piecemeal litigation

for the purpose of harassment as evidenced by the fact that

Mr. Green has filed more than 500 lawsuits since his in-

carceration in the Missouri penal system in 1975?

3. Is the Eighth Circuit’s Order mandating an evi-

dentiary hearing concerning the issues raised by Mr. Green,

which were found to state a cause of action, illegal because

it denies Mr. White his Seventh Amendment right to a jury

trial and further denies him the opportunity to raise addi-

tional affirmative defenses in the District Court?

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State

or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within

the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an

action at law, suit and equity, or other proper proceed-

ing for redress.

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution:

In suits at common law where the value in contro-

versy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by

jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury

shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the

United States, than according to the rules of common

law.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-

lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the government for a redress of griev-

ances.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the

United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

are citizens of the United States and of the state where-

in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States, nor shall any state de-

prive any person of life, liberty or property without

due process of law, nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned

among the several states according to their respective

numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each

state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right

to vote at any election for the choice of electors for

President and Vice-President of the United States, rep-

resentatives in Congress, the executive and judicial of-

ficers of a state, or the members of the legislature

thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such

state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the

United States, or in any way abridged, except for par-

ticipation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of rep-

resentation therein shall be reduced in the proportion

which the number of such male citizens shall bear to

the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of

age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a senator or repre-

sentative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-

President, or hold any office, civil or military, under

the United States or under any state, who, having

previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or

as an officer of the United States, or as a member of

any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial of-

ficer of any state, to support the Constitution of the

United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or

rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to

the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of

two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the

United States, authorized by law, including debts in-

curred for payment of pensions and bounties for ser-

vices in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not

be questioned. But neither the United States nor any

state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation in-

curred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the

United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipa-

tion of any slave, but all such debts, obligations and

claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to en-

force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this

article.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On October 24, 1978, Mr. Green filed ‘a class action

suit” under the aegis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mr. White

seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and one million

dollars in damages (Appendix C).

Mr. Green contended that while he was a prisoner at

Moberly in 1976 the superintendent of that facility, Mr.

White, refused to recognize the so-called Human Aware-

ness Universal Life Church. Mr. Green posited, inter alia,

that Carl White unconstitutionally failed to recognize this

so-called church as a legitimate religion; that he refused

to allow the inmate members of the so-called church to

wear long hair and beards as an incident of the exercise

of their alleged religion; additionally, it was contended that

Mr. White illegally denied the members of the so-called

church the right to distribute its so-called religious lit-

erature.

Among various requests for relief found in the Com-

plaint is the following: “That this Court declare this suit

is a class action suit on behalf of all church members now

at the Moberly prison.” (See, Appendix C at Al2).

On October 26, 1978, Judge Nangle, on his own motion,

dismissed the lawsuit. In his “Memorandum” Judge

Nangle stated:

This matter is before the Court upon the Court’s

own motion to consider whether this cause should be

dismissed as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Plaintiff filed this suit prose on behalf of himself

and other inmates of his church seeking $1,000,000.00

in damages. Plaintiff alleges that he is a minister with

the Hurnan Awareness Universal Life Church. In

1976, plaintiff was a prisoner at the Moberly prison

where he was unable to exercise his religious beliefs.

Plaintiff alleges that the church believes in long hair

and beards, conjugal visits and banquets on religious

holidays. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Superinten-

dent of the Missouri Training Center for Men at Mob-

erly, Missouri, refused to appoint plaintiff as a full-

time paid chaplain and refuses to allow plaintiff to

return to the institution, upon release, at a full salary

as minister of the church. Plaintiff alleges in addition

that defendant has refused to allow distribution of the

church’s newspapers.

It is the Court’s conclusion that his complaint is

frivolous as a matter of law and must be dismissed.

[Citations omitted].

On October 31, 1978, Mr. Green filed a ‘‘Notice of Ap-

peal and Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis.”

On November 6, 1978, Judge Nangle denied “. . . plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis . . . the

court being of the opinion that this cause is frivolous and

that there is no meritorius issue for appeal.” It appears

that on November 9, 1978, Mr. Green filed a “Notice of

Appeal” in the Eighth Circuit.

On October 18, 1978, the Eighth Circuit concluded that

although some of Mr. Green’s contentions were frivolous an

evidentiary hearing was required in regard to “‘. .. whether

the defendant’s alleged denial of [Mr. Green’s] right to

wear long hair and beards [sic] as an incident of the ex-

ercise of his religion . . . and the defendant’s alleged denial

of [Mr. Green’s] rights to distribute the religious litera-

ture of his church” amounted to a denial of Mr. Green’s

federal constitutional rights. The undersigned, as counsel

for Mr. White, first became aware of this lawsuit when

he received in the mail the just-mentioned Order. See,

Mr. White’s ‘Petition for Rehearing, With Suggestion that

the Case Be Reheard in Banc” filed in the Eighth Circuit

on January 2, 1979.

In Mr. White’s January Motion for Rehearing it was

strenuously asserted that Judge Nangle correctly dismissed

Mr. Green’s § 1983 action because the latter was barred

from b.‘nging it in the first instance since he was not a

member of the class upon whose behalf he purported to in-

stitute the action and, in any event, the lawsuit was duplica-

tive of other actions initiated by Mr. Green which were

either settled with prejudice at the district court level or

decided adversely to Mr. Green by the Eighth Circuit.

In response to Mr, White’s January Motion for Rehearing

Mr. Green responded not by denying that the instant ac-

tion was a “class action” but by stating that he was “. .

a member of the class of church members as the leader of

the church members at Moberly.”

On January 5, 1979, the Eighth Circuit issued an Order

striking the last paragraph from its Order dated December

18, 1978, and declared that

. . . the appeal may proceed limited to the two issues

of [Mr. Green’s] alleged denial of his rights to wear

long hair and beards [sic] as an incident to the exer-

cise of his religion, and [Mr. Green’s] alleged denial

of his right to distribute the religious literature of his

church. [Emphasis added].

Also, on January 5, 1979, Mr. Green filed a “Motion for

Rehearing En Banc” asserting that the Eighth Circuit erred

in its ruling of December 18, 1978, because he was entitled

to all relief requested.

On January 16, 1979, the Eighth Circuit specifically

overruled all pending motions for rehearing filed by either

party. On January 19, 1979, Mr. Green was denied ap-

pointment of counsel.

After both parties filed briefs the Eighth Circuit issued

an Opinion on July 13, 1979. In that Opinion it was de-

termined that Mr. Green could not maintain the lawsuit

“as a class action”; that Mr. Green was not barred by the

doctrine of res judicata from litigating some of the claims

filed in the original petition; and, that the case be re-

manded for “an evidentiary hearing” in which inquiry

was to be

... Strictly limited to whether defendant White, during

the brief period in 1976 that Green was incarcerated at

Moberly, prevented Green personally from participat-

ing in church worship services and bible study classes,

from wearing long hair and a beard as an incident of

the exercise of his religion, or from distributing the

religious literature of his church, and, if so, whether

Green’s civil rights were thereby violated.

On July 30, 1979, Mr. White petitioned for rehearing

upon these grounds: a) that the Opinion violated Mr.

White’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial by man-

dating that the case be remanded solely for an evidentiary

hearing; b) that Mr. Green could not maintain the action

because barréd by the doctrine of res judicata; and, c)

that Mr. Green’s own Complaint clearly established that

the action was initiated on behalf of a class and that Mr.

Green’s own personal religious rights were not in issue.

On August 22, 1979, Mr. White supplemented his Motion

for Rehearing by adverting to a “Memorandum and Or-

der” issued by the Honorable Elmo B. Hunter in Green v.

Camper, No. 79-4055-CV-C (U.S.D.C., W.D. Mo. August

16, 1979). Mr. White posited that that “Memorandum and

Order” by Judge Hunter established that Mr. Green filed

lawsuits for the purpose of harassment and vexation and

that the issue of religion had been raised by Mr. Green on

previous occasions and decided adversely to him in every

instance. (Judge Hunter’s Opinion, just referred to, will be

found in Appendix D).

On September 19, 1979, the Eighth Circuit denied both

Mr. Green’s and Mr. White’s Motions for Rehearing. How-

ever, Chief Judge Gibson and Judge Ross dissented from

the denial of Mr. White’s Motion for Rehearing; Chief

Judge Gibson filed a Dissent in which he stated that the

District Court correctly dismissed Mr. Green’s § 1983 law-

suit because: a) Mr. Green epitomized the worst fears of

prisoner abuse of the judicial system since he had filed

over 500 cases on his own behalf, and unaccountable others

under the names of other inmates, and indulged in “bad

faith efforts to harass public officials and deluge the courts

with frivolous or malicious proceedings”; b) Mr. Green

had previously sued Mr. White in regard to the alleged

violation of Mr. Green’s freedom of religion during his

brief stay at the Moberly prison between March 2 and

April 15, 1976, which litigation culminated in an Eighth

Circuit decision reported at 589 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1979),

which should foreclose Mr. Green by virtue of the doctrine

of res judicata from relitigating similar issues; and, c)

that the remand for an evidentiary hearing was question-

able in view of Mr. Green’s request for a jury trial. Chief

Judge Gibson concluded his dissent by stating, in the

penultimate paragraph:

Green’s frivolous and often scurrilous filings have

consumed vast quantities of judicial resources, placing

additional burdens on the public purse, and we should

not provide him with an opportunity further to indulge

himself in this fashion.

MR. GREEN AS LITIGATOR

Mr. Green, a caucasian male, is very much a unique

individual. In this section of the Petition Mr. White will

set out those factors which make Mr. Green, in terms of

litigation, singular in this nation. It is Mr. White’s in-

tent to establish that Mr. Green’s frivolous and malicious

lawsuits repeatedly initiated, in piecemeal fashion, against

a relatively few defendants prove his bad faith in bring-

ing this action and support the contention that this action

is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that, in ad-

dition, Mr. Green is a litigator of some skill, acquired from

extensive experience and hence his legal papers are not

to be accorded the normal pro se inmate grant of liberal

construction.

In July, 1975, Mr. Green entered the Missouri State

Penitentiary at Jefferson City, Missouri, pursuant to plead-

ing guilty to a charge of rape in the Jackson County, Mis-

souri, Circuit Court, for which he received a sentence of

ten years. See, Green v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D. 680, 689 (W.D.

Mo. 1976); Green v. Wyrick, 414 F.Supp. 343 (W.D. Mo.

1976). Since that time Mr. Green has filed, in epic pro-

portions, civil rights and habeas corpus actions on behalf

of himself and other inmates. An early partial catalogue

of some of these actions, involving state and federal prison

officials, and in some instances judicial officers, appears in

Green v. Garrott, supra; see also, Green v. Wyrick, supra.

As stated by Judge Hunter in Green v. Garrott, supra:

. . . Clovis Carl Green, Jr., has filed on his behalf a

total of 219 civil cases, in the trial and appellate courts

in a relatively brief period of time and is continuing

to file such cases at an accelerated rate. A fair and

realistic overview of these cases and Mr. Green’s sin-

gular lack of success of carrying the burden of showing

they are meritorious inescapably brings the conclusion

that Clovis Carl Green, Jr., indeed does have a con-

tinuing history of engaging in a gross abuse of the

judicial process which is impeding the ability of the

judiciary to carry out its proper functions. Id., at 692.

In Green vw. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976),

Judge Hunter found that Mr. Green not only engaged in

grossly abusing the judicial system by repeatedly filing

frivolous and harassive lawsuits, but that he deliberately

and intentionally deceived the Court with respect to his

financial status, that he failed to follow court rules, and

that he did not faithfully represent inmates on whose be-

half he filed lawsuits. Pursuant to this finding Judge

Hunter ordered that Mr. Green be enjoined from writing

any more writs for other inmates for use in federal court

in the Western District of Missouri and from otherwise

practicing law in the penitentiary with litigation in the

District Court in view. Undaunted, Mr. Green has con-

tinued, and continues, to file lawsuits in the Western Dis-

trict not only for himself but on the behalf of others as

well. Recently the Eighth Circuit affirmed Mr. Green’s

convictions for contempt of the injunction. In the Matter

of the Alleged Contumacious Conduct of Clovis Carl Green,

Jr., 586 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1978). Also recently, Mr. Green

was convicted by a jury of once again violating the injunc-

tion and was sentenced by Judge Clark, United States

District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to a

period of ten years incarceration in the federal penal

system. United States v. Green, No. 78-0413-01-CR-C-W-3

(U.S.D.C. W.D. Mo., July 5, 1979). That conviction is

presently on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

Judge Hunder was unfortunately prescient when he

stated in Green v. Garrott, supra, on August 9, 1976, that

Mr. Green was “. . . continuing to file such cases at an

accelerated rate. . . .”. On November 15, 1978, United

States Magistrate Ralston, Western District of Missouri,

filed a Report and Recommendation in Green v. Duram,

No. 78-422-CV-C (W.D. Mo. November 15, 1978)? stating

that since 1966 Mr. Green had filed thirty-four lawsuits

in the United States District Court for the Western Dis-

trict of Missouri, four lawsuits in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, sixty-six law-

suits in the Eighth Circuit, eleven lawsuits in this Court,

eight lawsuits in the Missouri Supreme Court, seventeen

lawsuits in the Missouri Court of Appeals, four lawsuits in

the Circuit Court of Jackson County, and fifteen lawsuits

in the Cole County Circuit Court. At the conclusion of this

cataloguing, Judge Ralston noted:

. and, judging from his correspondence addressed

to this Court [Mr. Green] intends to continue his abu-

sive process at an accelerated, continued and unabated

pace.

Judge Hunter had recent occasion to update Mr.

Green’s litigation history. Green v. Camper, No. 79-4055-

CV-C (August 16, 1979) (Appendix D). Therein Judge

Hunter concluded that Mr. Green was malicious in the

filing of five hundred frivolous lawsuits. It should be

noted that in Green v. Camper Mr. Green requested equi-

table relief and damages in the sum of one million dollars

for claimed violations of his federally protected rights, in-

cluding the alleged refusal of prison officials to recognize

his claimed “religion,” the “(Human Awareness Universal

Life Church.” Mr. White believes that certain excerpts

from that Opinion should be brought to the attention of this

Court:

2. This Opinion by Judge Ralston has been placed in the

— of this Petition for this Court’s convenience: see, Ap-

pendix E.

“... The Court... finds that (1) inmate Green’s

contentions are duplicative of other contentions he has

made in other cases he has filed in the federal court;

that (2) his claims are frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) for the same reasons the Magistrate found

them to be frivolous, that (3) these claims of peti-

tioner are malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and

finally, (4) that this case is but another case in which

Petitioner Green is attempting in total bad faith to

so swamp the docket of the United States District

Court, Western District of Missouri, with frivolous

cases, maliciously brought as to cause the Court to be

unable to administer and process its docket. Peti-

tioner is of the apparent mind that by flooding the

Court with litigation and rendering it unable to ad-

minister its docket because of the sheer volume of

such frivolous and malicious filings he will cause the

Court to order his release from custody.

* * *

“Since July 1, 1979, inmate Green has filed ad-

ditional cases, including the instant case, bringing his

total filings to over five hundred cases. This he has

done in spite of being enjoined November 1, 1976,

from being a writ writer for other inmates. In Green

v. Wyrick, 428 F. Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976) there is

detailed a vignette of his writ writing activities dem-

onstrating that such activities were not beneficial or

productive to the other inmates. It was found that

_he simply used alleged complaints of other inmates

and their names to advocate his own contentions and

interests to the detriment of the other inmates. He

was totally ineffective and unsuccessful in such rep-

resentations. And finally inmate Green was declared

to have ‘a continuing history of engaging in gross abuse

of the judicial process which is impeding the ability

of the Judiciary to carry out its proper functions.’

[Citation omitted. ]

erage. Petitioner frequently repeats allegations

in several lawsuits and requests relief (therefor) in

separate suits....’ ... Because of his long history

of engaging in such tactics after repeated warnings by

the Court, it is clear that he persists for the intentional

purpose of making it difficult and time consuming to

the Magistrate and to the Court to process his litiga-

tion.

* % *

“,.. Thus, it is clear that, in virtually every in-

stance in which plaintiff’s claims have appeared color-

ably valid on the face of his pleadings, an evidentiary

probing of those claims has revealed total insubstan-

tiality. [Citation omitted. ]

* * *

“Inmate Green is the so-called founder of this

‘Church’, and claims to be the only one who can speak

for it or prepare its litigation. According to him, no

one of its ‘members’ can file any litigation without

his consent. Other correspondence and pleadings of

inmate Green make it clear that he is the ‘church’.

* * *

“Inmate Green has not been content to personally

and through ‘church’ action advance his desire to pre-

vent the federal court from being able to process its

docket but has resorted to intimidation tactics as a part

of that plan. In early May, 1979, the Court received

a threatening letter from a source styling itself ‘Amer-

ican Revolutionary Army’. The letter threatened that

women, children and many others would be killed if

certain things were not done immediately by the

Judges of this Court, including the giving of a pardon

or parole to every state prisoner who has less than

five years to serve on his sentence and a paid chaplain

for Clovis Green’s ‘church’....

“All of the above is reflective of but some of the

nearly innumerable acts of inmate Green deliberately

designed to totally frustrate the judicial process and to

obtain his release from the State Pennitentiary [sic].

Literally scores of other such acts of simliar design

could be added to this opinion but the above should

suffice to make it clear that inmate Green not only

has but continues to take almost daily actions in-

tended to so abuse the judicial process as to make it

impossible for the United States District Court, West-

ern District of Missouri, to process its docket. As ear-

lier indicated, inmate Green’s activities have not been

limited to this Court. Other courts, including the

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States

Supreme Court, also have come within his orbit.

* * *

“As stated in earlier opinions of this Court, unless

However, it is one thing to grant to prison in-

mates, including violent or recalcitrant ones, prospec-

tive, declaratory or injunctive relief designed to pro-

tect them in the future from unconstitutional practices

or conditions. It is quite another thing to expose prison

personnel, including personnel in the higher echelons

of prison administration and policy formulation, to

personal pecuniary liability in suits brought by largely

irresponsible inmates under § 1983. Such suits are

frequently without merit and may be maliciously

motivated. An inmate may use a suit or a threat of a

suit as a lever to obtain favorable treatment or a

desirable work assignment. Since § 1983 suits are us-

ually prosecuted in forma pauperis, and since prison of-

ficials may not constitutionally retaliate against a con-

vict for invoking his right of access to the courts, in-

mates have essentially nothing to lose, including time,

by prosecuting such actions, and they may gain some-

thing even if it is nothing but the satisfaction of haras-

sing, inconveniencing and annoying those who have

them in charge.

It is worthwhile to review here what Justice Powell stated

in his concurring Opinion in Rose v. Mitchell, _..... USS.

apne , 99 S.Ct. 2993, 3014 (1979):

the Courts of this nation are to be deemed to be power-

less to stop such a flagrant abuse of the judicial pro-

cess, one man will be able to preempt so much judicial

time at the trial and appellate levels as to thwart the

very ability of the judicial system to carry out its neces-

sary judicial function of properly processing its crim-

It is common knowledge that prison actions occupy

a disproportionate amount of the time and energies

of the federal judiciary. In the year ending June 30,

inal and civil docket of cases filed by other litigants 1978, almost nine thousand of the prisoner actions

who may have meritorious matters.” (Id., at pages 3, filed were habeas corpus petitions. [Citations omit-

30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, and 38). ted.] Apart from the burden of these petitions, many

of which are frivolous, collateral review can have a

particularly deleterious effect upon both the deterrent

and rehabilitative functions of the criminal justice

systems. {Citations omitted. ]

Since virtually all of Mr. Green’s five hundred law-

suits have been filed in forma pauperis, the Eighth Circuit’s

statement in Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260, 1266-1267 |

(8th Cir. 1978), is applicable to him:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The issues presented in this Petition go to the very

bedrock of the federal judiciary’s ability to effectively

function in light of the liberality with which it has chosen

to read pro se inmate lawsuits, and the plethora of new

and diverse constitutional rights given to state inmates

in recent years.

Mr. White requests that this Court issue an opinion

stopping Mr. Green, and all of his ilk, who maliciously

burden the federal judiciary with vexatious and harassive

lawsuits against prison administrators. Chief Judge Gib-

son in his dissent to the Eighth Circuit’s denial of Mr.

White’s Petition for Rehearing succinctly set forth the

problem:

The actions of Clovis Carl Green, Jr., epitomize

the worst fears of prisoner abuse of the judicial sys-

tem. Inmate Green has filed over five hundred cases

on his own behalf, and uncountable others under the

names of other inmates. His history of engaging in

gross abuse of judicial process is amply set forth in

Judge Hunter’s opinion in Green v. Camper [citation

omitted.] ‘The case at bar presents a small illustration

of Green’s use of the judicial process and must be

viewed in the context of his bad faith efforts to harass

public officials and deluge the courts with frivolous

or malicious proceecings.

Mr. White believes that he has established that Clovis

Carl Green, Jr., a caucasian male incarcerated in the

Missouri penal system since 1975, is the nation’s leading

litigator. It is Mr. White’s understanding that no one

has filed more lawsuits in this Court than Mr. Green.

Mr. White has been sued innumerable times by Mr.

Green, at least three times previously in regard to the

identical issue raised in the instant lawsuit. Until recently

Mr. Green’s only stay at the Moberly prison was for six

weeks in the spring of 1976. Nevertheless, a myriad of

lawsuits have sprung from the typewriter of Mr. Green

in regard to this short stay. Mr. White believes it is

now time that the burden be placed where it belongs—on

the shoulders of Mr. Green to establish that he has not

previously filed similar lawsuits which were decided ad-

versely to him, with prejudice. Mr. Green is a capable

and skilled litigator who knows exactly what he is doing;

Mr. Green is a man of intelligence and does not define

his classes in a class action lawsuit without knowing ex-

actly what he is doing. Mr. Green also knows that the

huge number of suits he has filed make it virtually im-

possible to keep track of them all and that an adverse

decision with prejudice may not be recalled years later

when Mr. Green again files suit on the same cause of

action. Mr. White requests that this Court reverse the

Eighth Circuit decision and affirm the dismissal of this

lawsuit. It is also requested that this Court apply more

lawyer-like rules of construction to those inmate litigators

with lawyer-like skills, and tremendous litigation experi-

ence, who file lawsuits more for harassment and enter-

tainment than because they have meritorious complaints.

ARGUMENT

Is This a Class Action?

As has been detailed previously Mr. Green initiated

this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and denominated

it a class action. A perusal of the Complaint will estab-

lish that part of the relief requested by Mr. Green was

certification of the lawsuit as a class action. In this regard

the Eighth Circuit said:

Because the complaint was dismissed as frivolous,

the District Court did not rule on the issue of certi-

fitation as a class action. We note, however, that

Green is not a member of the class he seeks to repre-

sent. In his complaint, Green requested certification

of a class of ‘all church members now at the Moberly

prison.’ Green is now and was at the time this action

was filed incarcerated at Missouri State Penitentiary

in Jefferson City, Missouri. He was confined at

Moberly only briefly between March 9, 1976, and

April 15, 1976. Green cannot, therefore, maintain

this action as a class action on behalf of inmate church.

members presently confined at Moberly.

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit assumed that the Com-

plaint contained individual claims relating solely to Mr.

Green. The instant issue is: does the Complaint contain

such claims?

Nowhere in Mr. Green’s Complaint does he state that

only his so-called religious rights were violated or in-

fringed upon while he was incarcerated at Moberly. In

the Complaint it is asserted that Mr. White refused to

allow the growing of long hair and beards; however, it

is never asserted that this claim was raised by Mr. Green

while he was incarcerated at Moberly or that Mr. White

refused such a request from him during that period of

time.

Similarly, in regard to the distribution of a so-called

newsletter, it is never stated at what time it was requested

that it be distributed. It is never posited that Mr. Green

personally requested, on behalf of his so-called “church,”

that a so-called newsletter be distributed during his tenure

at Moberly.

The only statement regarding Mr. Green himself, in

the pleading, is that ‘“‘The defendant refuses to allow the

plaintiff to return to the Moberly prison upon his release,

at full salary, as a minister of his church, denying freedom

of religion.” The dismissal of this claim by Judge Nangle

was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit because of its frivolous

nature. Consequently, the only parts of the pleading re-

maining to be reviewed relate to others immured at

Moberly—axiomatically this does not include Mr. Green

himself.

The Eighth Circuit concluded without so much as a

word in support that Mr. Green raised individual claims

concerning violations of his religious rights while he was

incarcerated at Moberly. Yet, as established, there is

nothing in the record to support such a conclusion and

the Eighth Circuit has not elucidated what source it drew

upon in making such a finding. The Eighth Circuit ig-

nored that rule of law stating that notice pleading does

not exist in a § 1983 lawsuit. Indeed, plaintiffs must plead

their case with specificity alleging detailed facts in sup-

port of their contentions. See, Ellingburg v. King, 490

F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1974); Bergman v. Stein, 404 F.Supp.

287 (S.D. N.Y. 1975); and, Blackburn v. Fisk University,

443 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1971). The only detailed facts in

Mr. Green’s Complaint concern a class action. Mr. White

posits that the Complaint at issue can be construed only

as a class action initiated by Mr. Green on behalf of

others and not solely in his own behalf, That the Eighth

Circuit failed to come to this conclusion is, in Mr. White’s

opinion, “‘. . . so far departed from the accepted and usual

course of judicial proceedings . . . as to call for an exer-

cise of this court’s power of supervision.” United States

Supreme Court Rule 19(b).

Is This Suit Barred by Res Judicata?

Even assuming, ad arguendo, that Mr. Green’s Com-

plaint contains individual claims, it is barred by the doc-

trine of res judicata. Mr. White vigorously argued in

the Eighth Circuit that Mr. Green had litigated the precise

issue in the instant case several times previously and

had it ruled against him adversely, with prejudice. A full

recapitulation of that argument is unnecessary here since

Mr. White’s brief, containing that argument, is in the

record requested certified and transferred to this Court

from the Eighth Circuit. Stated succinctly, Mr. White

believes that the Eighth Circuit erred by failing to con-

clude that a previous case filed by Mr. Green, Green v.

White, 589 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1970), did not act as a

previous adjudication of this issue. Mr. White argued

that the case culminating in 589 F.2d 378 had issues in

it identical to those in the instant suit. In this regard

the Eighth Circuit stated:

Defendant White asserts that Green’s individual

claims are barred by res judicata. White contends

that our decision in Green v. White, 589 F.2d 378

(8th Cir. 1979), precludes litigation of his present

claims. In that case, the District Court entered a

summary judgment ruling that Green’s transfer back

to Jefferson City in April, 1976, was clearly for rea-

sons unrelated to his religious beliefs or practice.

This Court affirmed. Green’s present specific alle-

gations were neither raised nor considered by either

court in that case. Therefore, that decision does not

preclude litigation of Green’s present claims.

However, in dissent, Chief Judge Gibson stated:

Green has previously sued White in his capacity

as superintendent of the Missouri Training Center for

Men for allegedly violating Green’s freedom of reli-

gion during his brief stay in the Moberly prison be-

tween March 9 and April 15, 1976. This litigation,

which culminated in our decision reported at 589 F.2d

378 (8th Cir. 1979), should foreclose him, by virtue

of the doctrine of res judicata from now seeking

relief.

That the majority erred by failing to recognize that

the instant case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata

is established by a perusal of the Complaint filed by Mr.

Green in 589 F.2d 378. A true and correct copy of that Com-

plaint is included in this Petition and will be found at

Appendix F.

On July 19, 1978, Mr. Green filed in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri a law-

suit against Mr. White under the aegis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

in which Mr. Green requested one million dollars for

the violation of his federal constitutional rights. In Claim

Three of that Complaint, which culminated in 589 F.2d

378, Mr. Green alleged:

During the time that the Plaintiff was in the

Moberly prison, the Defendant suppressed the freedom

of religion of the Plaintiff and other inmate church

members, and denied the practice of said religion in

any manner, violating the First Amendment.

In his “Argument of Law” in the July 19, 1978, Complaint

Mr. Green stated:

Thus, it is unconstitutional for the Defendant to

suppress and deny the freedom of religion of the

Plaintiff while he was at Moberly prison, and it is

unconstitutional for the Defendant to transfer the

Plaintiff to Missouri State Penitentiary due to the

religious practices of the Plaintiff.

In his “Relief Requested” section Mr. Green requested

one million dollars from Mr. White ‘“‘. . . for the violation

of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.”

Clearly, in July, 1978, Mr. Green sought one million

dollars from Mr. White claiming that while the former

was at Moberly the latter violated his federal constitu-

tional right to practice his so-called religion. Obviously,

the identical claim is the subject of this lawsuit. Why

the Eighth Circuit was not able to ascertain that Judge

Meredith’s dismissal of the July, 1978, Complaint, with

prejudice,* which dismissal was affirmed by the Eighth

Circuit at 589 F.2d 378, bars the instant action by virtue

of res judicata is difficult to understand.

On January 16, 1979, Mr. Green filed a “Motion for

Rehearing En Banc” in 589 F.2d 378* wherein it is stated

on page 3 at paragraph 6:

This court did not rule on the issue of the viola-

tion of the freedom of religion during the time that

3. See, for a true and photostatic copy of that “Judgment,”

Appendix G.

4. A true and correct photostatic copy of this Motion will

be found in Appendix H accompanying this Petition.

the Appellant spent at Moberly under the Human

Awareness Universal Life Church.

Mr. Green also filed an additional “Motion for Rehearing

En Banc” on January 11, 1979,° in which he stated at

page 2, paragraph 3:

The appellant presented the claims that the ap-

pellee violated the freedom of religion of appellant

during the time that he was at Moberly prison, which

is a meritorious issue under Green v. Wyrick, 545 F.2d

1099 (8th Cir. 1976). This Court ignored ruling on this

issue in its Court ruling in this case, with no explana-

tion. The Appellant cannot appeal to the U.S. Su-

preme Court on this issue if this Court does not issue

a ruling on that claim, denying access to the courts.

[Emphasis added. ]

Unequivocally, by Mr. Green’s own admissions, he did

present to the Eighth Circuit, and to the District Court, in a

case culminating in 589 F.2d 378, the contention that dur-

ing his stay at Moberly from March to April, 1976, Mr.

White infringed his First Amendment right to practice his

so-called religion.

In Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 168

U.S. 1, 48-49, 18 S.Ct. 18, 27, 42 L.Ed. 355 (1897), this Court

stated in regard to the doctrine of res judicata:

The general principle announced in numerous cases

is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue

and directly determined by a court of competent juris-

diction, as a ground for recovery, cannot be disputed

in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their

privies; and, even if the second suit is for a different

5. A true and correct photostatic copy of this Motion will

be found at Appendix I which accompanies this Petition.

cause of action, the right, question or fact once so

determined must, as between the same parties or their

privies, be taken as conclusively established, so long

as the judgment in the first suit remains unmodified.

It is irrelevant that in the instant action Mr. Green has

added to his theory of recovery the specific allegations that

he was denied the right to grow long hair and a beard and,

in addition thereto, the right to distribute his so-called

newsletter. Hall v. Tower Land and Investment Co., 512

F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1975); Carr v. United States, 507 F.2d

191, 193-194 (5th Cir. 1975); Brotherhood of Railroad Train-

men v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 383 F.2d 225, 227

(D.C. Cir. 1967). As stated by the Court in Brotherhood

of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.:

It is a well-settled and virtually axiomatic rule

of sound judicial administration that a party having

several alternative grounds for relief arising out a par-

ticular transaction does not have the privilege of liti-

gating his theories one at a time, holding one in re-

serve while he presses another to judgment. Accord-

ing to the complementary principles of bar and merger

whether a party loses or wins relief in his initial action,

the judgment embodies all his rights stemming from

the transaction involved, and he is foreclosed from

later seeking relief on the basis of issues he might have

raised in the prior proceeding to support his original

claim.

The identical parties are before this Court in the in-

stant lawsuit. The cause of action is identical except for

Mr. Green’s more specific allegations in regard to Mr.

White’s alleged denial of certain religious practices by Mr.

Green while he was incarcerated at Moberly. The Eighth

Circuit had before it, in the lawsuit culminating in 589

F.2d 378, issues identical in nature to those now before this

Court; consequently, that previous adverse decision bars

Mr. Green from litigating this issue anew. As stated by

this Court in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen,

333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S.Ct. 715, 719, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948):

The general rule of res judicata applies to repeti-

tious suits involving the same cause of action. It

rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time

and public policy favoring the establishment of cer-

tainty in legal relations. The rule provides that when

a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final

judgment upon the merits of a cause of action the

parties of the suit and their privies are thereafter

bound ‘not only as to every matter which was offered

and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand

but as to any other admissible matter which might

have been offered for that purpose.’ The judgment

puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again

be brought into litigation between the parties upon

any ground whatever, absent fraud or some other fac-

tor invalidating the judgment.

Unequivocally Mr. Green has previously litigated

whether Mr. White violated the former’s constitutional

rights by treating him discriminatorially because of his

so-called religion while he was immured at Moberly. De-

spite obvious and abundant case law to the contrary the

Eighth Circuit has allowed Mr. Green to drag Mr. White

once again into court and allege that the latter violated

his so-called religious freedom and rights. The cause of

action is the same and the identical parties are involved.

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit has chosen to ignore the

similarities between the instant lawsuit and previous law-

suits decided adversely to Mr. Green, with prejudice. It

is time that Mr. White’s own rights be vindicated and

that he be spared once again being brought into court

by Mr. Green; thus, he requests that the Writ issue because

the Eighth Circuit’s Opinion, in this regard, is so far from

the mainstream of judicial proceedings, and such a de-

parture from previous law, that this Court should exercise

its power of supervision. Surely, previous sections of this

Petition have established that the instant lawsuit is mali-

ciously motivated. This case does not involve an average

inmate litigant. Mr. White’s res judicata argument should

be viewed liberally in light of Mr. Green’s substantiated

abuse of the judiciary. This is the third time Mr. Green

has brought Mr. White into court claiming that the latter

violated his constitutional rights because of religious dis-

crimination. Mr. White respectfully requests that this

Court view the instant lawsuit in light of the Mr. Green

delineated by the Honorable Elmo B. Hunter in Green v.

Camper, supra.

III

Has Mr. White’s Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury

Trial Been Violated?

In its July 13, 1979, Opinion the Eighth Circuit re-

manded this case for an evidentiary hearing. Mr. White

in his Motion for Rehearing filed on July 30, 1979, noted,

in this regard, as follows:

Once again, this Court has violated [Mr. White’s]

federal constitutional rights by remanding the case

for an evidentiary hearing. Regardless of how circum-

scribed the inquiry may be at that evidentiary hearing,

it is wholly inapplicable. As noted above there is

no place for an evidentiary hearing in a § 1983 law-

suit, especially where as here [Mr. Green] himself

has already requested a jury trial. What this Court

intended by remanding, a second time, for an evi-

dentiary hearing is once again beyond [Mr. White’s]

ken. Will discovery be available to [Mr. White]?

Will he be able to depose [Mr. Green] before the

evidentiary hearing occurs? If [Mr. White] re-

quests, indeed demands, a jury trial, will Judge Nangle

be circumscribed by this Court’s Opinion and conse-

quently forced to refuse such a request? [Mr.

White] is in need of enlightenment as to exactly what

function this Court intends an evidentiary hearing

to serve. Stated laconically, it is [Mr. White’s] opin-

ion that this Court has issued an illegal order by

remanding for an evidentiary hearing.

In his dissent Chief Judge Gibson also questioned the

majority’s remand for an evidentiary hearing:

Furthermore, the propriety of remanding for an

evidentiary hearing is questionable in view of Green’s

request for a jury trial. The scope and purpose of

the hearing are unclear and it stands in an unusual

procedural posture. Since no equitable relief is at

stake in the proceeding, an evidentiary hearing on

the ultimate issue in dispute may conflict with the

right to a jury trial.

As noted, Mr. Green has already requested a jury

trial. As detailed in the chronological procedural history

of this case Mr. White has never had the opportunity

to appear in District Court. This case was dismissed by

Judge Nangle on his own motion and an opinion rendered

on the merits by the Eighth Circuit before Mr. White

was even aware that this lawsuit existed. Should Judge

Nangle’s dismissal be reversed and this case remanded,

counsel for Mr. White states that he will request a jury

trial. Of course, there is no longer any question but that

either a plaintiff or defendant in a § 1983 lawsuit has

a Seventh Amendment right to request and have: a jury

trial. Ford v. Brier, 71 F.R.D. 195, 197 (E.D. Wis. 1976);

Cook v. Cox, 357 F.Supp. 120 (E.D. Va. 1973); Burch

v. Carmody, 377 F.Supp. 1157, 1158 (E.D. N.Y. 1974); Rich-

ards v. Smoltich, 359 F.Supp. 9 (N.D. Ill. 1973); see also,

Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d

260 (1974). Of interest is the Eighth Circuit’s decision

in Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1977), where

that Court assumed, without any discussion, that plaintiffs

are entitled to jury trials in § 1983 actions.

Unquestionably, the Eighth Circuit has erred in direct-

ing that this case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Both Mr. Green and Mr. White want to have this case

tried to a jury, if it is to be tried at all. The Eighth

Circuit cannot take that right away from either party,

although it has chosen to attempt to do so.

An additional inherent difficulty with the Eighth Cir-

cuit’s remand for an evidentiary hearing is that it fore-

closes Mr. White from raising other procedural defenses

to the lawsuit. It must be remembered that this case

was in the Eighth Circuit before Mr. White was aware

of its existence. Consequently, he has not filed anything

in the District Court as of yet. Nevertheless, she Eighth

Circuit’s remand seems to foreclose any opportunity for

Mr. White to file an answer raising affirmative defenses.

It would seem that the Eighth Circuit has ordered that

this case go directly to an evidentiary hearing on the

merits of those claims the Eighth Circuit found stated

a cause of action. Mr. White believes that such an order

violates his right to present affirmative defenses to the

lawsuit. If this case is to be remanded, then Mr. White

wants the opportunity not only to file an answer but

to raise the affirmative defense of good faith immunity.

Surely, Mr. White as a high prison official has a qualified

immunity from liability. Prosunier v. Navarette, ........ US.

veceeeee , 98 S.Ct. 855 (1978). Mr. White must be given the

opportunity to plead that he acted in good faith by deny-

irg Mr. Green, assuming he did deny Mr. Green personally,

the right to grow long hair and a beard and distribute

a newsletter. Mr. White posits that if he personally denied

Mr. Green the right to engage in such activities, and it

was unconstitutional to do so, he acted in good faith under

the belief that Mr. Green was urging the practice of tenets

in a bogus religion and that those activities, if allowed

to flourish, would have unreasonably endangered the secu-

rity of the penal institution.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the petition for a writ of

certiorari should be granted and the judgment and decision

of the Eighth Circuit reversed.

Respectfully submittted,

JOHN ASHCROFT

Attorney General

MICHAEL H. FINKELSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

(314) 751-3321

Attorneys for Petitioner

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 78-1891

Clovis Carl Green, Jr., on Behalf of Himself and.All Other

Members of the Human Awareness Universal Life Church

Incarcerated at the Missouri Training Center for Men at

Moberly, Missouri,

Plaintiffs,

Vv.

Carl White, Superintendent, Missouri Training Center for

Men, Moberly, Missouri,

Defendant.

On Motion for Court Order Directing District

Court to Hold Jury Trial.

Submitted: July 2, 1979

Filed: July 13, 1979

Before HEANEY, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit

Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Clovis Carl Green brought this action pro

se on behalf of himself and all other members of the

Human Awareness Universal Life Church incarcerated at

the Missouri Training Center for Men at Moberly, Missouri.

The action was predicated on 42 U.S.C. §1983 (1976)

and alleged that defendant White, Superintendent at Mo-

berly, denied plaintiffs their right to exercise their religious

beliefs. The following specific violations were alleged:

church members were denied permission to conduct wor-

ship services, bible study classes, and other religious activ-

ities, and were denied the right to wear long hair and

beards, to engage in conjugal visits, to hold banquets on

religious holidays and to distribute the church newspaper

Truth, to inmates. Green also claimed that plaintiffs’ rights

were violated by the refusal of the defendant to appoint

Green as a full-time paid chaplain. The District Court,

on its own motion, dismissed the complaint as frivolous

and denied Green’s motion for leave to appeal in forma

pauperis.

Thereafter, in an amended and unpublished order, this

Court granted Green leave to appeal in forma pauperis

with respect to three issues only: (1) the alleged denial

of his right to participate in church worship services and

bible study classes; (2) the alleged denial of his right

to wear long hair and a beard as an incident of the exer-

cise of his religion; and (3) the alleged denial of his right

to distribute the religious literature of his church. Ac-

cordingly, only these issues are presently before the Court.

Because the complaint was dismissed as frivolous, the

District Court did not rule on the issue of certification

as a class action. We note, however, that Green is not

a member of the class he seeks to represent. In his com-

plaint, Green requested certification of a class of “all

church members now at the Moberly prison.” Green is

now and was at the time this action was filed incarcerated

at Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City, Missouri.

He was confined at Moberly only briefly between March

9, 1976, and April 15, 1976. Green cannot, therefore, main-

tain this action as a class action on behalf of inmate church

members presently confined at Moberly.

Defendant White asserts that Green’s individual claims

are barred by res judicata.’ White contends that our

decision in Green v. White, 589 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1979),

precludes litigation of his present claims. In that case,

the District Court entered a summary judgment ruling

that Green’s transfer back to Jefferson City in April, 1976,

was clearly for reasons unrelated to his religious beliefs

or practice. This Court affirmed. Green’s present specific

allegations were neither raised nor considered by either

court in that case. Therefore, that decision does not pre-

clude litigation of Green’s present claims.

As noted in our prior order, similar claims of denial

of religious freedom were also raised by Green in Green

v. White, 545 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1976). This Court re-

manded that case for an evidentiary hearing on Green’s

claims that defendant denied him his right to practice

his religious beliefs. The case was, however, dismissed

without prejudice after Green was denied leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. It, therefore, does not bar Green’s

present claims.

The District Court properly ruled that certain of

Green’s claims were frivolous. However, the three claims

on which Green was allowed to proceed on this appeal

are not on their faces frivolous. It appears to the Court

that Green has never had an opportunity to litigate these

claims. We, therefore, remand to the District Court for

an evidentiary hearing. The inquiry shall be strictly lim-

ited to whether defendant White, during the brief period

1. The District Court dismissed this action before the de-

fendant had the opportunity to file any responsive pleadings.

Under these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to consider

this defense even though it was not raised in the District Court.

in 1976 that Green was incarcerated at Moberly,” prevented

Green personally from participating in church worship

services and bible study classes, from wearing long hair

and a beard as an incident of the exercise of his religion,

or from distributing the religious literature of his church

and, if so, whether Green’s civil rights were thereby vio-

lated.

Green has filed a motion requesting that this Court

order the District Court to hold a jury trial in this case.

Such a request should be directed to the District Court

in the first instance. The motion is denied.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS,

EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

2. The Court is cognizant that Green has in the past filed

numerous suits alleging similar violations of his religious freedom

by officials at the penitentiary in Jefferson City and that some

such suits were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a settle-

ment agreement entered into on June 16, 1978, between Green

and penitentiary officials. That agreement, and Green’s allega-

tions concerning violations of religious rights at Jefferson City,

are the subject of continuing litigation in the United States

District Court for the Western District of Missouri. We, there-

fore, reiterate that the present action concerns only alleged vio-

lations of Green’s rights of religious freedom during his brief

incarceration at Moberly.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

September Term, 1979

78-1891

Clovis Carl Green, Jr.,

Appellant,

VS.

Carl White,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri

The Court having considered petition for rehearing

en banc filed by appellant pro se and, being fully advised

in the premises it is ordered that the petition for rehearing

en banc be, and it is hereby, denied,

Considering the petition for rehearing en banc as a

petition for rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for

rehearing also be, and it is hereby, denied.

September 19, 1979

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

September Term, 1979

78-1891

Clovis Carl Green, Jr.,

Appellant,

VS.

Carl White,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri

The Court having considered petition for rehearing

en banc filed by counsel for appellee and, being fully

advised in the premises, it is ordered that the petition:

for rehearing en banc be, and it is hereby, denied.

Chief Judge Gibson and Judge Ross would grant the

petition of appellee for rehearing en banc. Attached hereto

is a statement in dissent by Chief Judge Gibson.

Considering the petition for rehearing en banc as a

petition for rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for

rehearing also be, and it is hereby, denied.

September 19, 1979

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 78-1891

Clovis Carl Green, Jr.,

Appellant,

Carl White, -

Appellee.

On Petition for Rehearing

DISSENT TO THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION

FOR REHEARING

FILED: September 19, 1979

GIBSON, Chief Judge.

This case inspires fearful anxiety over the ability of

the federal courts to protect themselves from abuse by

prisoner filings. Concern for the inordinate amount of

judicial resources expended to cope with the deluge of

prisoner filings in the federal courts has mounted in recent

years. As stated by Mr. Justice Powell, concurring in

the judgment in Rose v. Mitchell, No. 77-1701, slip op.

at 6 (U.S. Sup. Ct. filed July 2, 1979): “It is common

knowledge that prisoner actions occupy a disproportionate

amount of the time and energies of the federal judiciary.”

The actions of Clovis Carl Green, Jr. epitomize the

worst fears of prisoner abuse of the judicial system. In-

mate Green has filed over 500 cases on his own behalf,

and uncountable others under the names of other inmates.

His history of engaging in gross abuse of judicial process

is amply set forth in Judge Hunter’s opinion in Green

v. Camper, No. 79-4055-CV-C, (W.D. Mo., filed August

16, 1979). The case at bar presents a small illustration

of Green’s use of judicial process, and must be viewed

in the context of his bad faith efforts to harass public

officials and deluge the courts with frivolous or malicious

proceedings. ;

Green has previously sued White in his capacity as

superintendent of the Missouri Training Center for Men

for allegedly violating Green’s freedom of religion during

his brief stay in the Moberly prison between March 9

and April 15, 1976. This litigation, which culminated in

our decision reporivd at 589 F.2d 378 (8th Cir. 1979),

should foreclose him, by virtue of the doctrine of res

judicata, from now seeking relief. Furthermore, the pro-

priety of remanding for an evidentiary hearing is question-

able in view of Green’s request for a jury trial. The

scope and purpose of the hearing are unclear and it stands

in an unusual procedural posture. Since no equitable re-

lief is at stake in the proceeding, an evidentiary hearing

on the ultimate issue in dispute may conflict with the

right to a jury trial.

Green’s frivolous and often scurrilous filings have con-

sumed vast quantities of judicial resources, placing addi-

tional burdens on the public purse, and we should not

provide him with an opportunity further to indulge himself

in this fashion.

For these reasons I dissent from the denial of the

petition for rehearing, with suggestion that the case be

reheard en banc.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS,

EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

No. 78-1144 C (3)

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

CARL WHITE, etc.,

Defendant.

ORDER

(Filed October 26, 1978)

Pursuant to the memorandum filed this date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause be, and

is dismissed.

/s/ JOHN F. NANGLE

United States District Judge

Dated: October 26, 1978.

Al0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

No. 78-1144 C (3)

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CARL WHITE, etc.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

(Filed October 26, 1978)

This matter is before the Court upon the Court’s own

motion to consider whether this cause should be dismissed

as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §1915(d).

Plaintiff filed this suit pro se on behalf of himself

and other inmate members of his church, seeking $1,-

000,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff alleges that he is a min-

ister with the Human Awareness Universal Life Church.

In 1976, plaintiff was a prisoner at the Moberly prison

where he was unable to exercise his religious beliefs.

Plaintiff alleges that the church believes in long hair and

beards, conjugal visits and banquets on religious holidays.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, superintendent of the Mis-

souri Training Center for Men at Moberly, Missouri, re-

fused to appoint plaintiff as a full-time paid chaplain and

refuses to allow plaintiff to return to the institution, upon

release, at a full salary as minister of the church. Plain-

tiff alleges in addition that defendant has refused to allow

distribution of the church’s newspapers.

All

It is the Court’s conclusion that this complaint is frivo-

lous as a matter of law and must be dismissed.. Cf., Brooks

v. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 652 (5th Cir. 1970); Polakoff v.

Henderson, 370 F.Supp. 690 (N.D.Ga. 1973).

/8/ JOHN F. NANGLE

United States District Judge

Dated: October 26, 1978.

>»

Al2

APPENDIX C

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

CASE NO. 78-1144-C (3)

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., REG. NO. 27914, MISSOURI

STATE PENITENTIARY, JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI,

ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER INMATES

SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs

Vs.

CARL WHITE, SUPERINTENDENT MISSOURI

TRAINING CENTER FOR MEN

MOBERLY, MISSOURI

Defendants.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AS

A CLASS ACTION

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF PRO SE, CLOVIS

CARL GREEN, JR., on behalf of himself and all other

inmate members of his church, and prays that this Court

will award money damages of $1,000,000 (One Million

Dollars) to the Plaintiff for the violation of the freedom

of religion of the Plaintiff, and grant declaratory and in-

junctive relief for the protection of the constitutional rights

of all church members therein. In support of such

relief, the Plaintiff states the following:

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the

U.S. Statutes, the U.S. Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. section

1983 as a class action suit.

Al3

CLAIMS

1.) The Plaintiff is a minister of God with the HU-

MAN AWARENESS UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH, which

believes in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, has

a formal set of church doctrines and beliefs, had church

government, and is a legitimate religion.

2.) In 1976, the Plaintiff was a prisoner at the Mo-

berly prison under the Defendant.

3.) The Defendant refused to recognize said Church,

did not allow the full and free exercise of the religious

beliefs of the Church, and discriminated against said

church in denying any worship services, bible study

classes, or other activities.

4.) The Plaintiff found many members of his church

wanting services, and in fact, was larger than the Protes-

tant church services, but the Defendant refuses to appoint

the Plaintiff as full-time paid chaplain then. This violates

freedom of religion. 4

5.) The church believes in long hair as a gift of

God, and beards. The Defendants refused to allow this

worship service practice, violating freedom of religion.

6.) The church believes in conjugal visiting to sanc-

tify the marriage before God. Conjugal visiting will not

present any danger to the security of the prison and there

is no compelling institutional reason to deny this required

religious practice by church inmates.

7.) The church wishes to publish its church news-

paper, TRUTH, to ¢ stribute to all inmates, but the De-

fendant denied this request.

8.) The Defendant refuses to allow the Plaintiff to

return to the Moberly prison upon his release, at full

Al4

salary, as the minister of his church, denying freedom

of religion.

9.) The church believes in banquets, at the expense

of inmates, on religious holidays as a dietary rule. The

Defendant denies this right, violating freedom of religion.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR THE FOL-

LOWING RELIEF:

1.) That this Court declare this suit is a class action

suit on behalf of all church members now at the Moberly

prison.

2.) That this Court declare that the HUMAN

AWARENESS UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH is a legiti-

mate religion under protection of the First Amendment.

3.) That this Court order the Defendant to allow

the Plaintiff to hold worship services and other religious

activities, at the salary of the defendant upon his release.

4.) That this court order the Defendant to allow

church members to grow their hair and beards long under

freedom of religion, and allow regular conjugal visiting.

5.) That this Court order the Defendant to allow

church banquets on all religious holidays, at the expense

of the church members of the prison.

6.) That this Court order the Defendant to publish

and circulate the church newspaper, TRUTH, at the ex-

pense o° the prison.

7.) That this Court order the Defendant to pay money

damages of $1,000,000 (One Million Dcellars) to the Plaintiff

for the violation of his freedom of religion.

Al5

8.) That this Court grant any other relief deemed

fair, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Clovis Carl Green Jr.

Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT AND OATH

I, CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., do swear under oath

that due to my poverty that I am unable to pay the

costs of these proceedings or give securities thereof, that

I have a meritorious action, and am entitled to relief from

this court.

I, CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., do swear under oath

that all statements herein are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief.

/s/ Clovis Carl Green Jr.

Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

STATE OF MISSOURI

COUNTY OF COLE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME

/s/ (Illegible)

Notary Public

My Commission Expires: -.........2..........:20-e000++

Al6

APPENDIX D

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

CENTRAL DIVISION

No. 79-4055-CV-C

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

VS.

DONALD CAMPER, et al.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

(Filed August 18, 1979)

On March 21, 1979, plaintiff, Clovis Carl Green, Jr.,

a Missouri state prisoner who is currently confined in

the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City on a

state conviction of forcible rape, provisionally filed in

forma pauperis a complaint under the Civil Rights Act

of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its corresponding jurisdic-

tional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), seeking equitable relief

and damages in the sum of $1,000,000.00 for claimed viola-

tions of his federally protected rights including the alleged

refusal of prison officials to recognize his claimed “reli-

gion”, the “Human Awareness Universal Life Church”.

Named as parties were Donald W. Wyrick, Warden of

the Missouri State Penitentiary, Donald Camper, Inmate

Programs Supervisor of the penitentiary; Joseph Keene,

Mailroom Supervisor of that institution and two other

employees, Mr. Schank and Mr. Richards.

Foliowing the provisional filing of this case in forma

pauperis, it was referred in ordinary course to Magistrate

Al7

Richard Ralston for processing in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636; the Special Order of the

Court en Banc of Decernber 22, 1976, providing for such

actions; and Local Rule 26 of the United States District

Court fer the Western District of Missouri.

Review of the complaint reveals that as his grounds

for relief inmate Green in a very broad and conclusionary

fashion asserts (1) that while in a protective unit of the

penitentiary on March 9, 1979, he was given only three

sheets of paper and two envelopes three times a week,

thus denying him access to the courts;' (2) that he received

a violation report for “out of bounds” in a kitchen area

of the penitentiary which was not so marked with signs;

(3) that the prison policy and practice on violation report

disciplinary hearings “is unconstitutional because the Ad-

justment Board” .. . failed to give an adequate statement

as to evidence relied on or reasons for the action taken

against plaintiff inmate; rather than pointing out the essen-

tial facts upon which inferences were based, the Committee

merely incorporated the violation report and the special

investigator’s report”; (4) that he was denied access to

the courts because he “was denied the right to obtain

and have [his] box of legal papers and law books. . . dur-

ing the time that [he] was ir protective custody in H-Hall

during March, 1979”; (5) that he has been denied permis-

sion to conduct services of the “Human Awareness Uni-

versal Life Church” on Saturdays or to post notice of

the same; and (6) he was ordered to shave his beard

in violation of the “Human Awareness Universal Life

Church”.

1. Inmate Green has been making this contention and the

contention he lacks stamps for mailing pleadings, but the record

shows he weekly files innumerable papers, suits, letters and other

material to this and other courts.

Al8

In an objective and painstaking manner Magistrate

Ralston fully discussed each of these contentions in his

twenty-four page report and found them “frivolous” and

“malicious” under § 1915(d) of 28 U.S.C. The under-

signed Judge has carefully reviewed the entire case file

and Judge Ralston’s Report! and Recommendation and

finds that it is correct. The Court further finds that (1)

inmate Green’s contentions are duplicative of other con-

tentions he has made in other cases he has filed in the

federal court; that (2) his claims are frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) for the same reasons the Magistrate

found them to be frivolous; that (3) these claims of peti-

tioner are malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and finally,

(4) that this case is but another case in which Petitioner

Green is attempting in total bad faith to so swamp the

Jocket of the United States District Court, Western Dis-

trict of Missouri, with frivolous cases, maliciously brought

as to cause the Court to be unable to administer and

process its docket. Petitioner is of the apparent mind

that by flooding the Court with litigation and rendering

it unable to administer its docket because of the sheer

volume of such frivolous and malicious filings he will

cause the Court to order his release from custody.

The above statement concerning inmate Green’s pre-

meditated effort to prevent the Court from processing

its docket is solidly supported by inmate Green’s previous

fiilngs and statements that he has made in his pleadings,

letters and other documents.

1. The Magistrate’s Report details inmate Green’s previous

filings on these five alleged grounds. Suffice it to say, inmate

Green has had his day in Court on all his allegations that are not

so general as to be meaningless.

Alg

Inmate Green’s Previous Filings

Totaling Over 500 Cases

Commencing in 1972 when he was incarcerated in

the Federal Medical Center at Springfield, Missouri, to

the date of July 1, 1979, inmate Green has filed the follow-

ing cases.

From the United States District Court for the West-

ern District of Missouri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr.

P. J. Ciccone, No. 2877-1-S (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 3015-

1-S-R (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. Attor-

ney Generali, et al., No. 3027-1-S-R (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 3042-

1-S-R (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J.

Ciccone, et al., No. 3069-S (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. A. R. Elland, et al., No. 3092-S (W.D.Mo.

1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No.

73-CV-276-S (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-429-S (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-450-S-

WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr.

P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-451-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-

452-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-462-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.

1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al.,

No. 73-CV-499-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-CV-

517-S (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J.

Ciccone, et al., No. 73-CV-518-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-

520-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-CV-521-S-WHB-R (W.D.

Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

A20

et al., No. 73-CV-523-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis

Carl Grows, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-CV-

532-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-536-S-WHB-R (W.D.

Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

No. 73-CV-543-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 73-CV-581-S-WHB-R

(W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J.

Ciccone, et al., No. 73-CV-596-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No.

73-CV-622-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1973); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-4-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.

1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No.

74-CV-7-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-10-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.

1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No.

74-CV-16-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-17-S-WHB-R

(W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

et al., No. 74-CV-22-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-36-S-

WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P.

J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-44-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-

55-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-70-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.

1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No.

74-CV-71-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-81-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo.

1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No.

74-CV-89-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. U. S. Attorney General, et al., No. 74-CV-98-S (W.D.

Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Honorable Dennis

J. Stewart, No. 74-CV-99-S (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-101-S-WHB-R

A21

(W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

et al., No. 74-CV-113-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-

114-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-133-S-WHB-R (W.D.

Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

No. 74-CV-138-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-140-

S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr.

P. J. Ciccone, No. 74-CV-188-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No.

74-CV-205-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et alt., No. 74-CV-216-S-WHB-R

(W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

et al., No. 74-CV-217-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-CV-

241-S (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J.

Ciccone, No. 74-257-S-WHB-R (W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Norman Carlson, et al., No. 74-CV-228-S

(W.D.Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

et al., No. 75-CV-182-S (W.D.Mo 1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 75-CV-157-C (W.D.Mo. 1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 75-CV-165-C

(W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 75-CV-186-C (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, No. 75-CV-187-C (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 75-CV-189-C (W.D.

Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

et al., No. 76-CV-7-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Treasurer of the United States, et al., No. 76-CV-

14-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward

Haynes, et al., No. 76-CV-30-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation, No. 76-

CV-31-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Edward Haynes, et al., No. 76-CV-49-C (W.D.Mo. 1976);

A22

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, No.

76-CV-77-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Ed-

ward Haynes, et al., No. 76-CV-81-C (W.D.Mo. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, No. 76-CV-

82-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward

Haynes, No. 76-CV-95-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole,

No. 76-CV-99-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. United States of America, et al., No. 76-CV-100-C (W.D.

Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et

al., No. 76-CV-101-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Edwards Haynes, et al., No. 76-CV-102-C (W.D.Mo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. edward Haynes, et al.,

No. 76-CV-103-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, et al., No. 76-CV-120-C (W.D.Mo. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green. Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 76-CV-

122-C (W.D.Mc. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, No. 76-CV-129-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 76-CV-133-C (W.D.Mo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Reverend Garrot, No.

76-CV-135-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Donald Wyrick, No. 76 CV-139-C (W.D.Mo. i976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 76-CV-147-C (W.D.

Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

No. 19880-1 (W.D.Mo. 1971); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Don Emerson, et al., No. 20562-4 (W.D.Mo. 1972); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Steve Collins, No. 74-CV-222-W-2 (W.D.

Mo. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. Attorney Gen-

eral, et al., No. 75-CV-125-W-4 (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Colorado, No. 75-CV-144-W-

4-R (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. James Berg-

fable, et al., No. 75-CV-157-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 75-CV-169-W-

4-R (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of

Missouri, et al., No. 75-CV-177-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1975);

PP tt ELEN AOE BEE PB ee

A23

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 75-CV-

309-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Don-

ald Wyrick, No. 75-CV-498-W-4 (W.D.Mo. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Jack Bergfalk, No. 75-CV-416-W-4 (W.D.

Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, No. 76-CV-

223-W-4 (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, No. 76-CV-328-W-4 (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 158-C

(W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

Civil Action No. 76 CV 173-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 180-C

(W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

Civil Action No. 76 CV 183-C€ (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76

CV 186-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 206-C (W.D.

Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et

al., Civil Action No. 76 CV 205-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, Civil Action No. 77

4106 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl

White, et al., Civil Action No. 77 4026 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Proba-

tion and Parole, Civil Action No. 77 4306 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Missouri Division

of Corrections, et al., Civil Action No. 77 4315 CV-C (W.D.

Mo. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4027 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil

Action No. 78 4028 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No.

78 4055 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Donald W. Wyrick, Civil Action No. 78 4056 CV-C (W.D.

Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Division

of Corrections, Civil Action No. 78 4057 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green v. Donald W. Wyrick, Civil Ac-

A24

tion No. 78 4058 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No.

78 0055 CV-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Director, Missouri Division of Corrections, Civil Action

No. 78 4106 CV-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4107

CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4148 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al.,

Civil Action No. 4201 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald R. Jenkins, et al., Civil Action No.

78 4200 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Clerk, United States District Court for the Western District

of Missouri, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4203 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1978) ; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Sgt. Dearixon, et al., Civil

Action No. 78 4207 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 78 4216

CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978): Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Lt. Durham,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4222 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Joseph Keene, et al., Civil Action

No. 78 4223 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Jerry Archer, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4224 CV-C

(W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Lt. Beckley,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4225 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Mr. Dawson, et al., Civil Action

No. 78 4226 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Susan Stanton, Civil Action No. 78 0737 CV-W-4-R

(W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes,

et al., Civil Action No. 77 0076 CV-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States of America, Civil

Action No. 79 4005 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 79 4046

CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Joseph Keenes,

Civil Action No. 79 4051 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Camper, et al., Civil Action No. 79

0ST SUL

Sli SRE

a Pee See

Ne REAL at ss een

A25

4055 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Jenkins, et al., Civil Action No. 79 4067 CV-C (W.D.Mo.) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, Civil Action

No. 79 4068 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green v. The

Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Civil Action No. 79

4069 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. The Circuit

Court of Cole County, Missouri, et al., Civil Action No.

79 4078 CV-C (W.D.Mo.); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Otto

Walters, et al., Civil Action No. 79 4079 CV-C (W.D.Mo.);

and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Clerk, Western District of

Missouri, Civil Action No. 79 4143 CV-C (W.D.Mo.).

From the United States District Court for the District

of Kansas: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No.

L-2199 (D.Kans. 1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Don Emer-

son, et al., No. L-2228 (D.Kans. 1972); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. United States, No. L-2358 (D.Kans. 1973); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. L2463 (D.Kans.

1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. L-2503

(D.Kans. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No.

L-2687 (D.Kans. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United

States, No. L-2041 (D.Kans. 1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Fred Bensley, et al., No. 74-79 (D.Kans. 1975).

From the United States District Court for the District

of Minnesota: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. George Reed,

et al., No. 5-72-94 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-72-95 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-73-1 (D.Minn. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Kleindeinst, et al., No.

5-73-5 (D.Minn. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. R. L.

Aaron, No. 5-73-6 (D.Minn. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-73-8 (D.Minn. 1973); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-73-9 (D.Minn. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-73-10 (D.Minn.

1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Norman Carlson, et al.,

A26

No. 5-73-11 (D.Minn. 1973); Clovis Carl Green v. Richard

Swanstrom, No. 5-73-11 (D.Minn. 1973); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. R. L. Aaron, No. 5-73-23 (D.Minn. 1973): Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Kleindeinst, et al., No. 5-73-43

(D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Klein-

deinst, et al., No. 5-73-68 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Richard Kleindeinst, et al ™~~- 5-73-75 (D.Minn.

1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elliot Richardson, No.

5-73-99 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elliot

Richardson, 5-73-100 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Elliot Richardson, No. 5-73-101 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Elliot Richardson, No. 5-73-105 (D.Minn.

1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Norman Carlson, et al.,

No. 5-73-125 (D.Minn. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

United States Parole Office, No. 5-74-18 (D.Minn. 1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Honorable Miles Lord, No. 5-74-

1-M (D.Minn. 1974). Records relating to the twenty-sec-

ond case were unavailable.

From the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward

Haynes, et al., No. 75-914-C (E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 75-955 (E.D.Mo. 1975) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 75-993 (E.D.

Mo. 1975); In re Green (dismissed without assignment

of docket number 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, 75-1165 (E.D.Mo. 1976); In re Green (dismissed

without assignment of docket number 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Carl White, No. 76-299 (E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, No. N-76-22 (E.D.Mo. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White (dismissed without

assignment of docket number 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. Harold Robb, et al., No. 76-421 (E.D.Mo. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al., No. 76-425

(E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board

of Probation and Parole, No. 76-452 (E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

A27

Carl Green, Jr. v. Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, No. N-76-34 (E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Carl White, No. N-76-38 (E.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al., Civil Action No. 78 1144-

C(3) (E.D.Mo. 1978); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl

White, Civil Action No. 78 20-C (E.D.Mo. 1978).

From the United States District Court for the Western

District of Oklahoma: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard

Kleindeinst, et al., No. Civ. 73-241-C (W.D.Okla. 1973).

From the United States District Court for the District

of Colorado: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Colorado

State Department of Corrections, No. 76 W 416 (D.Colo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, et al., No.

C-3355 (D.Colo. 1971).

From the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eighth Circuit: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Miles W.

Lord, et al., No. 73-8034 (8th Cir. 1973); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Miles W. Lord, No. 73-8057 (8th Cir. 1973);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. R. L. Aaron, Warden, et al., No.

73-8079 (8th Cir. 1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J.

Ciccone, et al., No. 73-8157 (8th Cir. 1973); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-8165 (8th

Cir. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone,

et al., No. 73-8166 (8th Cir. 1974); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-8167 (8th Cir. 1974);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 73-8168

(8th Cir. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Cic-

cone, No. 74-8013 (8th Cir. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No. 74-8016 (8th Cir. 1974);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, et al., No.

74-8017 (8th Cir. 1974); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

William H. Becker, et al., No. 74-8049 (8th Cir. 1974);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, No. 75-8057

(8th Cir. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B.

A28

Hunter, No. 75-8062 (8th Cir. 1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 75-8125 (8th Cir.

1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri, No. 75-8147

(8th Cir. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B.

Hunter, et al., No. 75-8164 (8th Cir. 1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, No. 75-8197 (8th Cir.

1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., No. 75-8211 (8th Cir. 1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 76-8055 (8th Cir.

1976) ; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin,

No. 76-8069 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Treasurer of the United States Department of Treasury,

et al., No. 76-8079 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 76-8090 (8th Cir.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et al., No.

76-8095 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United

States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,

No. 78-8096 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, No. 76-8100 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al.,

No. 76-8101 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Edward Haynes, et al., No. 76-1802 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al., No. 76-1929 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth

Wangelin et al., No. 76-1940 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, et al., No. 76-

1941 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, No. 76-1942 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 76-1943 (8th Cir.

1976); In re: Clovis Carl Green, Jr., No. 78-1442 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick,

et al., No. 78-1698 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Carl White, No. 78-1714 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. John Regan, et al., Misc. No.

A29

76-8114 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward

Haynes, et al., Misc. No. 76-8126 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, Misc. No. 76-8133 (8th Cir.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. William H. Becker,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8135 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 76-8140 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth

Wangelin, et al., Misc. No. 76-8147 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon, Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No.

76-8148 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H.

Kenneth Wangelin, Misc. No. 76-8156 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B, Hunter, Misc. No.

76-8164 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United

States, et al., Misc. No. 76-8175 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, et al., Misc. No.

76-8176 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, Misc. No. 76-8177 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 76-8184

(8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al.,

Misc. No. 76-8185 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Haynes, et al., Misc. No. 76-8189 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No.

76-8201 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 76-8202 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No.

76-8209 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 76-8228 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Clerk, U.S. District Hunter, et al.,

Misc. No. 76-8228 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. United States, et al., Misc. No. 76-8229 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 76-8249 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No. 76-8250 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Misc. No. 76-8253 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al., Misc.

A30

No. 77-8029 (8th Cir. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Don-

ald W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No. 77-8145 (8th Cir. 1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 77-8251 (8th Cir. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 77-8253 (8th Cir. 1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 78-8021 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8022 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. District Court, et al., Misc.

No. 78-8043 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Misc.

No. 78-8049 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8054 (8th Cir. 1978) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Richard H. Ralston, et al.,

Misc. No. 78-8055 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

State of Missouri, et al., Misc. No. 78-8059 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, et al., Misc. No.

78-8095 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8096 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 78-8105 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8126 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No.

78-8164 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8167 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Misc. No. 78-8171

(8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B.

Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8172 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern Dis-

trict of Missouri, Misc. No. 78-8184 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri, Misc. No, 78-8189 (8th Cir.

1978) ; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al.,

Misc. No. 78-8191 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Clerk, U.S. District Court, et al., Misc. No. 78-8199 (8th Cir.

BO! A neh veda!

Fach AR Sead RS ca NL” OD AR A Be

A31

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al.,

Misc. No. 78-8204 (8th Cir. 1978); In the Matter of: Green

and Steven Dale Davis, Petitioners, Misc. No. 78-8205 (8th

Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8214

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8215

(8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8216

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No, 78-8217

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8219

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8221

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8222

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8225

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8228

(8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No, 78-8229

(8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, Misc.

No. 8230 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

W. Wyrick, Misc. No. 78-8236 (8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green,

Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8247 (8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green,

Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8249 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al., Misc. No. 78-8259

(8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8001

(8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Jenkins,

et al., Misc. No. 79-8002 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Peti-

tioner, Misc. No. 79-8005 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Sgt. Dearixon, et al., Misc. No. 79-8010 (8th Cir. 1979) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Lt. Durham, et al., Misc. No. 79-

8011 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Joseph

Keenes, et al., Misc. No. 79-8012 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Jerry Archer, et al., Misc. No. 79-8013

(8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Lt. Beckley, et al.,

Misc. No. 79-8014 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, et al., Misc. No. 79-8017 (8th Cir. 1979) ;

In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8019 (8th Cir. 1979);

In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8039 (8th Cir. 1979);

In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8040 (8th Cir. 1979) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and

A32

Parole, Misc. No. 79-8044 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. United States of America, Misc. No. 79-8043

(8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. District

Courts for Eastern and Western Missouri, 79-8050 (8th

Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8051 (8th

Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8052 (8th

Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8053 (8th

Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, et al.,

Misc. No. 79-8067 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner,

Misc. No. 79-8068 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner,

Misc. No. 79-8072 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner,

Misc. No. 79-8075 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green and Davis,

Petitioners, Misc. No. 79-8078 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green,

Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8079 (8th Cir. 1979); In re: Green

and Davis, Petitioners, Misc. No. 79-8081 (8th Cir. 1979);

In re: Green and Davis, Petitioners, Misc. No. 79-8089 (8th

Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8091 (8th

Cir. 1979); In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 79-8092 (8th

Cir. 1979; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Pro-

bation and Parole, Misc. No. 79-8095 (8th Cir. 1979);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and

Parole, Misc. No. 79-8114 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al., Misc. No. 79-8115

(8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B.

Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 79-8134 (8th Cir. 1979); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Mise. No. 79-8135

(8th Cir. 1979).

From the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth

Circuit: United States v. Clovis Carl Green, Jr., Defen-

dant-Appellant, No. 72-1331 (10th Cir. 1972); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Don Emerson, et al., No. 72-1761 (10th Cir.

1972); United States v. Clovis Carl Green, Jr., Defendant-

Appellant, No. 72-1839 (10th Cir. 1973); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. United States, No. 73-1189 (10th Cir. 1973); Clovis

A33

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. 73-1539 (10th Cir.

1973).

From the Supreme Court of the United States: Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. 72-5880 (1972); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. 72-5433 (1973); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 75-5421

(1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter, et al.,

No. 76-5155 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. H. Kenneth

Wangelin, et al., No. 76-5195 (1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 76-5317 (1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. United States District Court for the West-

ern District of Missouri, No. 77-6379 (1977); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter, No. 77-6362 (1977); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Elm B. Hunter, No. 77-6555 (1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation

& Parole, No. 78-5407 (1978); and Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Richard Ralston, No. 78-5351 (1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 78-5699 (1979); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Clerk of United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri, No. 78-5717 (1979);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Judge Elmo B. Hunter, No. 78-

5732 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Ralston,

No. 78-5799 (1979); In the Matter of the Alleged Con-

tumacious Conduct of Clovis Carl Green, Jr., No. 78-5845

(1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No.

78-5848 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, No.

78-6097 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 78-6278 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Russell G.

Clark, et al., No. 78-6281 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Carl White, No. 78-6311 (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. State of Missouri, et al., No. 78-6327 (1979); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Ralston, et al., No. 78-6359

(1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Proba-

tion and Parole, No. 78-6360 (1979); Clovis Carl Green,

A34

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 78-6686 (1979);

and Clovis Carl Green, Jr., et al., v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter

et al., No. 79-5053.

From the Circuit Court of Cole County, Mis-

souri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden,

No. 27879 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

Warden, No. 27905 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, Warden, No. 27919 (1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, No. 27970

(1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden,

No. 27971 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wy-

rick, Warden, et al., No. 28016 (1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr., on behalf of Linda Smithers, Barbara Davis, Juanita

Vitalli, Kathy Webb and all other unknown women held

at Missouri State Penitentiary v. Donald Wyrick, Warden,

No. 28045 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes,

No. 28063 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wy-

rick, Warden, No. 28117 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Edward Haynes, No. 28079 (1975); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No. 28137 (1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No. 28139

(1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald M. Camper, et

al., No. 28165 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Captain

Manness, et al., No. 28175 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No. 28176 (1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No. 28177 (1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No.

28248 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

Warden, No. 28249 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Ed-

ward Haynes, et al., No. 28503 (1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et al., No. 28533 (1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No. 28567

(1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No.

28677 (1976); Clovis Carl Green v. Director, Division of

A35

Corrections, No. 28710 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Department of Probation and Parole, No. 29133 (1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Department of Probation and

Parole and Director, Division of Corrections, No. 30184

(1978); Clovis Carl Green, et al. v. Donald W. Wyrick,

No. 30214 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr., et al. v. Director,

Division of Corrections, et al., No. 30270 (1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30292 (1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Governor, et al., No. 30661 (1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Board of Probation and Parole,

No. 30665 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Board of Pro-

bation and Parole, No. 30663 (1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30665 (1978); Clovis Carl

Green, et al. v. Director, Division of Corrections, et al.,

No. 30685 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Divi-

sion of Corrections, No. 30614 (1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Board of Probation and Parole, No. 30615 (1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Division of Corrections,

No. 30634 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Divi-

sion of Corrections, et al., No. 30894 (1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole,

et al., CV179-133cc (1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Jenkins, et al., No. CV179-515ce (1979); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Don Smith, et al., No. CV179-537ce (1979).

From the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri:

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, No. 76248-4

(1976).

From the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri:

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV 75-

2852 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

No. CV 76-0747 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State

of Missouri, No. CV 78-2295 (1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV 78-2360 (1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV 78-2510 (1978);

A36

and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV

78-2824 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

CV 790865 (1979).

From the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City Dis-

trict (now Western District): Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

State of Missouri, No. KCD 27852 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. KCD 27911 (Mo.

App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

No. KCD 27933 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Robert Frazer, No. KCD 28130 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Keith Bondurant, No. KCD 28263

(Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James

T. Riley, No. KCD 28304 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, et al., No. KCD 28305 (Mo.

App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T. Moore,

No. KCD 28353 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Hon. James T. Riley, No. KCD 20380 (Mo.App. 1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. James T. Riley, No. KCD 28381

(Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. KCD 28385 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, No. KCD 28395 (Mo.App. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T. Riley, No. KCD 28432

(Mo.App. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T.

Riley, No. KCD 28452 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. James T. Riley, No. KCD 28541 (Mo.App.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No.

KCD 28570 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v, Hon.

James A. Moore, No. KCD 28685 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T. Riley, No. KCD 28713

(Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Judge Riley,

No. KCD 30604 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Henry R. Bratkowski, No. 028769 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole,

No. 028771 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

A37

Edward Haynes, No. 028770 (Mo.App. 1976); In Re Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No, 028854 (Mo.App.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 028949

(Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 029110 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr., et al.

v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30180 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mis-

souri, No. 30359 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Honorable Byron Kinder and Hon. James T. Riley, No.

30360 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri

Board of Probation & Parole, No. 30365 (Mo.App. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Division of Corrections and

Donald Wyrick, No. 30373 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri and Donald Wyrick, No.

30°74 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of

Missouri, No. 30436 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 30454 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 30464 (Mo.App.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. 1. Donald W. Wyrick, No.

30474 (Mo.App. 1978); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Cole

County Circuit Court, No. 30520 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole,

No. 30782 (Mo.App. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Cir-

cuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, No. 30813 (Mo.

App. 1979); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Judge Riley, No.

30604 (Mo.App. 1979); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Judge

Riley, No. 30658 (Mo.App. 1979).

From the Missouri Supreme Court: Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 59007 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 59018 (Mo. 1975); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 59055 (Mo. 1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al., No. 59130

(Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No.

59207 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T.

A38

Riley, No. 59264 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr., on

behalf of Linda Smothers, et al. v. Hon. James T. Riley, No.

59265 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. James T.

Riley, No. 59309 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Donald Wyrick Warden, No. 59315 (Mo. 1975); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 59340 (Mo. 1975);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, No. 59432 (Mo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Proba-

tion and Parole, No. 59433 (Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. James T. Moore, No. 59522 (Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. Henry R. Bratkowski, No. 59558 (Mo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, No. 59559

(Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of

Probation and Parole, No. 59560 (Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al., No. 59600 (Mo. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Warden, No.

99681 (Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 59664 (Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director,

Division of Corrections, No. 60743 (1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald R. Jenkins, et al., No. 60923 (Mo. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al., No. 60924 (Mo.

1978) ; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation

and Parole, No. 60325 (Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Director, Missouri Division of Corrections, No. 60938 (Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Jackson

County, Missouri, No. 20945 (Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, No. 61061

(Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of

Probation and Parole, No. 61276 (1979); and Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Jackson County, No. 61305

(1979).

Since July 1, 1979, inmate Green has filed additional

cases, including the instant case, bringing his total filings

to over five hundred cases. This he has done in spite of

being enjoined November 1, 1976, from being a writ

A39

writer for other inmates.1. In Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.

Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976) there is detailed a vignette of

his writ writing activities demonstrating that such ac-

tivities were not beneficial or productive to the other

inmates. It was found that he simply used alleged com-

plaints of other inmates and their names to advocate his

own contentions and interests to the detriment of the other

inmates. He v’as totally ineffective and unsuccessful in such

representations. And finally inmate Green was' declared

to have “a continuing history of engaging in gross abuse

of the judicial process which is impeding the ability of

the Judiciary to carry out its proper functions.”* See

Green v. Wyrick, 428 F. Supp. 732 (W.D. Mo. 1976).

Inmate Green has not been content with the filing of

hundreds of frivolous and malicious actions. In 1976 in

Green v. Wyrick, (W.D. Mo.) 423 F. Supp. 732 at 736 it

1. Even the injunction has not deterred inmate Green. His

deliberate violation of that injunction by his numerous legal ac-

tivities for other inmates has twice resulted in his conviction for

criminal contempt of Court. See, In The Matter of the Alleged

Contumacious Conduct of Clovis Carl Green, Jr., 586 F. 2d 1247

(8th Cir. 1978) and United States v. Clovis Carl Green, Jr., Crim-

inal Action No. 79-04013-01-CR-W-4 (W.D. Mo. 1979).

2. It was there noted that this same type of willful abuse

of the judicial process had also been carried out in the state courts.

One Missouri State Court characterized inmate Green’s activities

as “a calculated abuse of process of the same or similar nature

as that condemned by the federal district Court.” Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, Civil Action No. 78-2824, Mo. Cir.

Ct., 16th Jud. District, 8/25/78, unpublished opinion. The Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals was in agreement as to inmate Green’s

litigation activities, see, Green v. Wyrick, Misc. No. 76-8096 (8th

Cir., June 3, 1976) and Green v. Garrott, Misc. No. 76-8184 (8th

Cir. Nov. 2, 1976). And, see Green v. Garrott, 76 CV 100-C (E.D.

Mo. August 25, 1976) in which Judge Wangelin entered an injunc-

tive order against inmate Green, declaring: “As of this date

Clovis Carl Green, Jr., has filed in excess of 200 lawsuits. All

of these lawsuits have been frivolous ....” In Green v. Haynes,

CV 102-C (W.D. Mo. 1976) Magistrate Stewart wrote, petitioner’s .

repeated “filing of impertinent allegations constitutes an imminent

threat to the administration of justice in this district, when ju-

dicial time and effort must be taken to evaluate them.”

A40

was noted: ‘First, despite the experience of having

filed ‘hundreds’ of lawsuits, petitioner consistently and

deliberately has failed to follow the proper procedures

and rules for filing actions in this Court. Contrary to

local rules requiring inmates to submit petitions on court-

approved and court-provided forms, and Rule 8(a), Fed-

eral Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a short and plain

statement of the claim, petitioner continues to submit

voluminous pro se pleadings containing conclusionary

statements and long-winded recitations of irrelevant facts

and allegations . . . Petitioner (has) the habit of sending

ex parte motions and letters to the Court, without serving

opposing counsel with a copy . . . Petitioner’s pleadings

frequently contain offensive, impertinent, and irrelevant

comments, the nature of which twice has caused the Court

to strike petitioner’s pleadings as ‘vile and scandalous’.

Petitioner regularly ignores, refuses to answer or makes

‘irrelevant’ answers in response to questions or court pro-

vided forms concerning his financial status or previous

history of litigation. .. . Petitioner frequently repeats

allegations in several lawsuits and requests relief (there-

for) in separate suits....” Inmate Green continues thése

activities. His pleadings continue to be of such a nature

as to make it unreasonably difficult, if not impossible, to

process his case in an orderly fashion. Because of his .

long history of engaging in such tactics after repeated

warnings by the Court, it is clear that he persists for the

intentional purpose of making it difficult and time con-

suming to the Magistrate and to the Court to process his

litigation.

As stated by the Magistrate in his present Report

and Recommendation, “Aside from the sheer quantity of

plaintiffs litigation, the quality of his claims also demon-

strate the maliciousness of the legal actions which he has

A41

initiated against prison officials, court personnel and judi-

cial officers. For example, in the cases styled Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 77-

4315 CV-C (W.D. Mo.), and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, et al., Civil Action

No. 77-4306 CV-C (W.D. Mo.), plaintiff alleged that prison

disciplinary actions had been and were continuing to be,

initiated against him by prison officials, resulting in his

confinement in segregated units in retaliation for his legal

activities and for his attempts to proselytize on behalf

of his newly-founded ‘religion’. After a full three-day

evidentiary hearing, at which petitioner was represented

by able counsel, appointed by’ the Court, it was clearly

evident that ‘in each instance of disciplinary action

shown .. ., petitioner [had] not been disciplined for his

legal activities, but rather for clear violations of prison

rules and regulations.’ Id. (Unpublished Report and Rec-

ommendation of May 10, 1978). And a later evidentiary

hearing set in those cases, the purpose of which was to

adjudicate plaintiff’s ‘religious’ claims, was aborted by his

dismissal of those actions. Another evidentiary hearing,

set in the cause styled Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, Civil Action No. 78,4216 CV-C (W.D. Mo.), to

determine his claim that other inmates and prison super-

visory personnel had physically abused him, was again

dismissed by plaintiff on the morning of trial. And another

evidentiary hearing, held on May 29, 1979, in the cause

styled Clovis Carl Green v. Missouri Board of Probation

and Parole, et al., Civil Action No. 77-4306 CV-C (W.D.

Mo.), upon his claim that prison officials had breached

their settlement agreement by not allowing him to conduct

‘church’ meetings on Saturdays resulted in a judicial find-

ing that his claim had absolutely no factual basis. Ac-

cordingly, his motion to ‘reopen’ the issues in that cause

was denied. Thus, it is clear that, in virtually every

A42

instance in which plaintiff’s claims have appeared colorably

valid on the face of his pleadings, an evidentiary probing

of those claims has revealed total insubstantiality. See,

Green v. Wyrick, 428 F. Supp. 732, et al., Civil Action

No. 76 CV 100-C (E.D. Mo. 1976).

““TN]o one, rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the

judicial process.’ Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F. 2d 798,

800 (5th Cir. 1975); Ex parte Tyler, 70 F.R.D. 456 (W.D.

Mo. 1976). Accordingly, in light of plaintiff’s history in

this, and other courts, of initiating frivolous and malicious

litigation against prison authorities, parole officials, court

personnel, judicial officers, and other governmental of-

ficers, and his demonstrated abuse of the judicial process

at public expense, involving extreme costs in terms of

time and expense* on the part of state and federal judicial

and executive personnel, and the public as a whole, this

action should be characterized as ‘malicious’ and should

be dismissed for that reason alone.”

Additionally illustrative of inmate Green’s intent to

“swamp” the Court with frivolous actions are the following

excerpts from some of his pleadings and letters: From

inmate Green’s July 23, 1979, Motion for a Jury Trial

in the instant case, “Now the Prisoners’ Law Collective

has been formed under the sponsorship of the Human

Awareness Universal Life Church.1 The goal and aim

of the P. L. C. ... is to encourage inmates to file many

*The litigious activities of petitioner “have cost the govern-

ment, in a conservative estimate, thousands of dollars...’’. Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action

No. 76 CV 100-C (W.D. Mo. 1976), (unpublished opinion of Judge

Wangelin).

1. Inmate Green is the so-called founder of this “Church”,

and claims to be the only one who can speak for it or prepare

its litigation. According to him, no one of its “members” can

file any litigation without his consent. Other correspondence and

pleadings of inmate Green make it clear that he is the “church”.

A43

court suits against the prison, parole board and State.

This plaintiff (Green) will assist the inmates in the state

courts, and other ‘jail house attorneys’ will prepare the

court suits in this Western District of Missouri. Hopefully,

the number of court suits will double in the next six

months, then double again in the following six months.

If possible, we would like to have 4 or 5 times as many

court actions filed in the next years as has been filed

in the past! At the present time, without the legal aid

of this plaintiff, more than 100 inmate church members

are preparing civil rights court suits to be filed in this

Court very soon—and then each one will continue filing

more courts suits very often ...:.”

Within the past several weeks in a “letter” to the

Clerk of this Court inmate Green stated, “I would like

to ask your office to mail 3 sets of court forms for civil

rights complaints to each of the 77 inmates” (named).

* * * “The reason that these inmates would need

3 sets of court form is that each inmate plans to prepare

and then submit 3 civil rights complaints to this court

for the violation of their constitutional rights by prison

officers. The Council of Elders has decided that it is

the duty of each inmate member of this Church to start

filing civil rights complaints individually, and/or class

actions, to bring judicial attack of the prison officials’

violation of the constitutional rights of inmates.” * * *

“Each inmate plans to file about 3 separate civil rights

complaints upon receipt of the court forms, and then file

additional civil rights suits each month....” -

Inmate Green has not been content to personally and

through “church” action advance his desire to prevent

the federal court from being able to process its docket

but has resorted to intimidation tactics as a part of that

plan. In early May, 1979, the Court received a threaten-

ing letter from a source styling itself “American Revolu-

A44

rionary Army”. The letter threatened that women, chil-

dren and many others would be killed if certain things

were not done immediately by the Judges of this Court,

including the giving of a pardon or parole to every state

prisoner who has less than five years to serve on his

sentence and a paid chaplain for Clovis Green’s “church”.

Shortly, thereafter, inmate Green wrote three letters to

the United States District Court, obviously on Green’s

claim of denial of access to the courts, stating, “They

(certain inmates about to leave prison) feel the most effec-

tive method is by assassination and terrorism—bombing

of public places, resulting in mass murder. I suggest you

begin obeying the law and stop this illegal actions, or

many deaths may occur. Sincerely, Clovis Carl Green,

Jr.” In another letter to the Clerk of this Court inmate

Green stated, “Dear Sir, please do not ever return any

motions to me in the future, because I will continue to

mail them back to you every time. Please keep in mind

if you return any documents you are denying access to

the courts. Some friends of mine tell me that if this

court continues to deny my access to the courts, upon

their release from prison, they will use terrorism (mass

murder by public bombing) to redress our grievances

if the court refuses to allow access. So please do not

return any documents or the lives of many people may

be on your conscience. Sincerely, Clovis Cari] Green, Jr.”

The third document, filed on May 15, 1979, in a motion

titled “Motion for 'Trial” in Green v. State of Missouri,

No. 79-4378 CV-C, stated in part: “The plaintiff [Green]

submits that the dismissal of this cause will deny access

to courts for redress of grievances. * * * The plaintiff

[Green] has been told by other revolutionary extremist

inmates (who believe in mass murder by public bombings

to redress grievances) that in the event that this court

rules to deny this case and thereby state that the court

will not protect the constitutional rights of the plaintiff

aa lt BE ROL Peay ston os Pe eae

Bi Nii STEN A PE ae es

STDS RI

A45

[Green] and other inmates, then the only effective method

to protect the rights of prisoners is by mass murder of

large numbers of men, women and children by terrorist

bombing in public places. Therefore, if this Court decides

to rule—in effect—that this Court will not obey the law

and protect the rights of prisoners, then the lives of large

numbers of citizens will be on the conscience of this Court.

Sincerely, Clovis Carl Green, Jr.” Clearly, inmate Green

has added illegal threats to his arsenal.

All of the above is reflective of but some of the nearly

innumerable acts of inmate Green deliberately designed

to totally frustrate the judicial process and to obtain his

release from the State Penitentiary. Literally scores of

other such acts of similar design could be added to this

opinion but the above should suffice to make it clear

that inmate Green not only has but continues to take

almost daily actions intended to so abuse the judicial pro-

cess as to make it impossible for the United States Dis-

trict Court, Western District of Missouri, to process its

docket. As earlier indicated, inmate Green’s activities have

not been limited to this Court. Other courts, including

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States

Supreme Court, also have come within his orbit.

The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation that

leave to proceed in forma pauperis be withdrawn and

that this cause be dismissed as frivolous and malicious

under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are approved.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is withdrawn, and

this cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

As stated in earlier opinions of this Court, unless the

Courts of this nation are to be deemed to be powerless

to stop such a flagrant abuse of the judicial process, one’

man will be able to preempt so much judicial time at

the trial and appellate levels as to thwart the very ability

of the judicial system to carry out its necessary judicial

A46

function of properly processing its criminal and civil docket

of cases filed by other litigants who may have meritorious

matters.

Congress has authorized the federal courts to dismiss

an action which presents issues which are insubstantial,

either legally or factually. Jones v. Ault, 67 F.R.D. 124,

127 (S.D. Ga. 1973), affirmed 516 F. 2d 898 (5th Cir.

1975); Boston v. Stanton, 450 F. Supp. 1049 (W.D. Mo.

1978). And, in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) Congress has au-

thorized the Courts to dismiss a prospective action when-

ever it is satisfied, in its discretion, that the proposed

action is “frivolous or malicious.”! See, O’Connell v.

Mason, 132 F. 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1946); Duhart v. Carlson,

469 F. 2d 471, 478 (10th Cir. 1972) cert. den. 410 U.S.

958 (1973); Note, Petitioner to Sue In Forma Pauperis:

Standards and Procedures for the Exercise of Judicial

Discretion, 56 Boston L. Rev. 745, 746.

The Magistrate is directed that until further order

of Court, in all pending actions and in all future actions

filed by inmate Green in the United States District Court,

Western District of Missouri, which are or may be re-

ferred to the Magistrate, the Magistrate is first to address

the question as to whether or not the action appears to

be in furtherance of inmate Green’s bad faith efforts to

deluge this Court with frivolous or malicious proceed-

ings contrary to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and, if so, without

endeavoring to address the merits of any of the contentions,

to recommend to the District Court that the cause be

dismissed as either frivolous or malicious or both under

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Elmo B. Hunter

United States District Judge

1. Where warranted contempt and criminal action for ob-

struction of justice may be available. 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

az i ae

sores —

creecrx

as Lave wt keel

Senate SAE ns LR NED SIE

B47

APPENDIX E

IN THE

UNITED STATES L ‘STRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DIS. RICT OF MISSOURI

CENTRAL DIVISION

No. 78 4222 CV-C

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

LT. DURHAM, et al.,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE THAT THE

CAUSE BE DISMISSED AS “MALICIOUS” UN-

DER THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

(Filed November 15, 1978)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Missouri State Peni-

tentiary at Jefferson City, Missouri, and perhaps the most

prolific “writ-writer” in the nation, has provisionally filed

in forma pauperis a complaint under the Civil Rights Act

of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and its corresponding jurisdic-

tional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), seeking to litigate

the validity of certain prison disciplinary proceedings

which occurred more than two years ago. Named as par-

ties defendant are Donald W. Wyrick, Warden of the peni-

tentiary, and two prison correctional officers, Major Lewis

and Lieutenant Durham. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judg-

ment that the state statute under which prison authorities

are authorized to impose is unconstitutional as “vauge,”

and damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for alleged viola-

tions of his federally-protected rights. Following the pro-

A48

visional filing of this cause in forma pauperis, it was re-

ferred to the undersigned United States magistrate for

processing in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636; the Special Order of the Court en banc of Decem-

ber 22, 1976, providing for the reference of such actions;

and Local Rule 26 of the United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri. This action is one

of seven filed by plaintiff within a period of approximately

one month.

While plaintiff has been granted provisional leave to

proceed in forma pauperis,* it is clear that the cause

should be dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Under the provisions of Section 1915(d),

supra, the Court is authorized to dismiss a prospective

action whenever it is satisfied, in its discretion, thaf the

proposed action is “frivolous or malicious” (emphasis

added). Noteworthy is the fact that Congress, in enacting

subsection (d) of Section 1915, supra, set forth two stan-

dards; one creating a standard of “frivolity,” and the other

creating a standard of “maliciousness.” By providing a

standard of “frivolity,” Congress clearly has authorized

the federal courts to dismiss an action which presents

issues that are insubstantial, either legally or factually.

See, generally, Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463 (N.D.Ga.

1972), aff'd 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973); Jones v. Ault,

67 F.R.D. 124, 127 (S.D.Ga. 1973), aff'd 516 F.2d 898 (5th

Cir. 1975); Boston v. Stanton, 450 F.Supp. 1049 (W.D.Mo.

1978); State of Louisiana ex rel. Purkey v. Ciolino, 393

F.Supp. 102 (E.D.La. 1975); and Clark v. Zimmerman,

*It is the practice of this Court to provisionally file those .

actions in which leave to proceed in forma pauperis is requested,

and then proceed to a determination of whether or not the ap-

plicant is eligible under Section 1915, supra. A determination of

“frivolity” or “maliciousness’ may then be made at any stage

of the subsequent proceedings.

= hae

re ere

a ela BLS

OAS A aon Gola ath tase. astra

tc ml enti dl

Ont Dale i ae nd wae

Ge ats 2 Ae Deiat Ra) 9S ar EG ARIE as HE

SERIE a RO OS a I I

A49

394 F.Supp. 1166 (M.D.Ga. 1975). “A determination as

to frivolity is a legal determination as to whether

there ‘exists substantiality as to [a plaintiff’s claim] of

justiciable basis and of impressing reality’.” Serna

v. O’Donnell, 70 F.R.D. 618 (W.D.Mo. 1976), quoting Carey

v. Settle, 251 F.2d 483 (8th Cir. 1965). But subsection

(d) of Section 1915, supra, couched in the disjunctive,

also empowers the Court to dismiss, in its discretion, an

action which is “malicious.” The purpose of this addi-

tional standard is to protect the courts, defendants, and

other litigants against plaintiffs or petitioners motivated

by malice. For, as stated in O’Connell v. Mason, 132

F. 245 (1st Cir. 1904) at 247:

It is quite clear that Congress while intending to ex-

tend to poor and meritorious suitors the privilege of

having their wrongs redressed without the ordinary

burdens of litigation, at the same time intended to

safeguard members of the public against an abuse

of the privilege by evil-minded persons who might

avail themselves of the shield of immunity from costs

for the purpose of harassing those with whom they

were not in accord, by subjecting them to vexatious

and frivolous legal proceedings.

Quoted with approval in Durhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d

471, 478 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. den. 410 U.S. 958 (1973).

Subsection (d) of Section 1915, supra, thus “empowers

the court to monitor the action to the end of avoiding

or minimizing abusive prosecutions by indigent plaintiffs

who seek to exploit or to abuse the generous purposes

of the statute.” Mann v. Leeke, 73 F.R.D. 264, 265 (D.S.C.

1974), aff'd 551 F.2d 307 (4th Cir. 1977). See, generally,

Note, Petitioner to Sue in Forma Pauperis: Standards

and Procedures for the Exercise of Judicial Discretion,

56 Boston L. Rev. 745, 746, 747 (1976).

A50

As indicated by Judge Elmo B. Hunter, Green v. Wy-

rick, 428 F.Supp. 732, 735 (W.D.Mo. 1976), and Green

v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D. 680 (W.D.Mo. 1976), and by a sub-

stantial number of other federal jurists, plaintiff has “a

continuing history of engaging in gross abuse of the judicial

process which is impeding the ability of the judiciary

to carry out its proper functions.” This willful abuse

of process has also been conducted in the state courts,

as illustrated by a recent state court characterization of

plaintiff’s activities as “a calculated abuse of process of

the sarne or similar wnature as that condemned by the

federal district court.” Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State

of Missouri, Civil Action No. 78 2824 (Mo.Cir.Ct., 8/24/78,

unpublished opinion). A partial catalogue of the literally

“hundreds” of lawsuits initiated by plaintiff, involving both

the trial and appellate courts of the state and federal

judicial systems, appears in Green v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D.

680, 685-92 (W.D.Mo. 1976), and Green v. Wyrick, 414

Supp. 343, 353 (W.D.Mo. 1976). To that list should be

added the thirty-four additional actions plaintiff has filed

in this Court since the compilation of that listing: Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76

CV 158-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 173-C (W.D.Mo. 1976) ;

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action

No. 76 CV 180-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 183-C (W.D.Mo.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Ac-

tion No. 76 CV 186-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action No. 76 CV 206-C (W.D. |

Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et

al., Civil Action No. 76 CV 205-C (W.D.Mo. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward Haynes, Civil Action No. 77

4106 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl

White, et al., Civil Action No. 77 4026 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

A5d1

1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Proba-

tion and Parole, Civil Action No. 77 4306 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Missouri Division

of Corrections, et al., Civil Action No. 77 4315 CV-C (W.D.

Mo. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4027 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil

Action No. 78 4028 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No.

78 4055 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Donald W. Wyrick, Civil Action No. 78 4056 CV-C (W.D.

Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Division

of Corrections, Civil Action No..78 4057 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green v. Donald W. Wyrick, Civil Ac-

tion No. 78 4058 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No.

78 0055 CV-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Director, Missouri Division of Corrections, Civil Action

No. 78 4106 CV-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4107

CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald

W. Wyrick, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4148 CV-C (W.D.Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, et al.,

Civil Action Ne. 4201 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald R. Jenkins, et al., Civil Action No.

78 4200 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Clerk, United States District Court for the Western Dis-

trict of Missouri, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4203 CV-C

(W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Sgt. Dearixon,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4207 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Civil Action

No. 78 4216 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Lt. Durham, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4222 CV-C

(W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Joseph Keene,

et al., Civil Action No. 78 4223 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

A52

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Jerry Archer, et al., Civil

Action No. 78 4224 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Lt. Beckley, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4225

CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Mr. Daw-

son, et al., Civil Action No. 78 4226 CV-C (W.D.Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Susan Stanton, Civil Action No.

78 0737 CV-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Edward Haynes, et al., Civil Action No. 77 0076

CV-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No. 78

0055 CV-W-4-R (W.D.Mo. 1978); the four actions filed

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Missouri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, Civil

Action No. 78 20-C (E.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Carl White, et al., Civil Action No. 78 1144-C(3)

(E.D.Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board

of Probation and Parole, Civil Action No. 76 452 C(2)

(E.D.Mo. 1978); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Dr. Harold

Robb, Civil Action No. 76 421-C(2) (E.D.Mo. 1978); the

sixty-six actions filed in the United States Court of Ap-

peals for the Eighth Circuit; Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Edward Haynes, et al., No. 76-1802 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, et al., No. 76-1929 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth

Wangelin, et al., No. 76-1940 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, et al., No. 76-

1941 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, No. 76-1942 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., No. 76-1943 (8th Cir.

1976); In re: Clovis Carl Green, Jr., No. 78-1442 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick,

et al., No. 78-1698 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Carl White, No. 78-1714 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. John Regan, et al., Misc. No.

76-8114 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Edward

A53:

Haynes, et al., Misc. No. 76-8126 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Carl White, Misc. No. 76-8133 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. William H.

Becker, et al., Misc. No. 76-8135 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 76-8140 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, et al., Misc. No. 76-8147 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8148 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin, Misc. No. 76-8156 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

Misc. No. 76-8164 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

»v. United States, et al., Misc: 76-8175 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. H. Kenneth Wangelin,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8176 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr, v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, Misc. No. 76-8177 (8th Cir.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr..v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8184 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Carl White, et al., Misc. No. 76-8185 (8th Cir. 1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Haynes, et. al., Misc. No. 76-

8189 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, et al., Miss. No. 76-8201 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc.

No. 76 8202 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 76-8209 (8th Cir.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8228 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. United States, et al., Misc. No. 76-8229 (8th Cir.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., Misc. No. 76-8249 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No. 76-8250 (8th

Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Misc.

No. 76-8253 (8th Cir. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Carl White, et al., Misc. No. 77-8029 (8th Cir. 1977); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No.

A54

77-8145 (8th Cir. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 77-8251 (8th Cir. 1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al.,

Misc. No. 77-8253 (8th Cir. 1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8021 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., Misc. No. 78-8022 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. U.S. District Court, et al., Misc. No. 78-8043 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. District Court

for the Western District of Missouri, Misc. No. 78-8049

(8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B.

Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8054 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Richard H. Ralston, et al., Misc.

No. 78-8055 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

State of Missouri, et al., Misc. No. 78-8059 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, et al., Misc. No.

78-8095 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon.

Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8096 (8th Cir. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al.,

Misc. No. 78-8105 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Hon. Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8126 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick,

et al., Misc. No. 78-8164 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. Hon. Richard Ralston, et al., Misc. No. 78-8167 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, Misc.

No. 78-8171 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Hon. Elmo B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8172 (8th Cir.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri, Misc. No. 78-8184 (8th

Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri, Misc. No. 78-

8189 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Hon. Elmo

B. Hunter, et al., Misc. No. 78-8191 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Clerk, U.S. District Court, et al., Misc.

No. 78-8199 (8th Cir. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

hiuetoacs SS

CaM wep SE HOR aa BIT OD M4 cae Si be FS we . v¥e

A55

Donald W. Wyrick, et al., Misc. No. 78-8204 (8th Cir.

1978); In the Matter of: Green and Steven Dale Davis,

Petitioners, Misc. No. 78-8205 (8th Cir. 1978); In re: Green,

Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8214 (8th Cir. 1978); In re:

Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8215 (8th Cir. 1978); In

re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8216 (8th Cir. 1978);

Inre: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8217 (8th Cir. 1978);

Inre: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8219 (8th Cir. 1978) ;

Inre: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8220 (8th Cir. 1978) ;

In re: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8221 (8th Cir. 1978) ;

In re Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8222 (8th Cir. 1978);

Inre: Green, Petitioner, Misc. No. 78-8225 (8th Cir. 1978);

the eleven actions filed in the Supreme Court of the United

States: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No. 72-

5880 (1972); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States, No.

73-5433 (1973); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter,

et al., No. 75-5421 (1975); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo

B. Hunter, et al., No. 76-5155 (1976); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. H. Kenneth Wangelin, et al., No. 76-5195 (1976);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 76-5317

(1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri, No. 77-6379

(1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter, No.

77-6362 (1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Elmo B. Hunter,

No. 77-6555 (1977); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri

Board of Probation & Parole, No. 78-5407 (1978); and

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Richard Ralston, No. 78-5351

(1978); the eight actions filed in the Supreme Court

of Missouri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 59664 (Mo. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Director,

Divis.uon of Corrections, No. 60743 (1978); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Donald R. Jenkins, et al., No. 60923 (Mo.

1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

et al., No. 60924 (Mo. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, No. 60325

A56

(Mo. 1978); Clovis Cari Green, Jr. v. Director, Mis-

sourt Division of Corrections, No. 60938 (Mo. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Jackson

County, Missouri, No. 60945 (Mo. 1978); and Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, No.

61061 (Mo. 1978); the seventeen actions filed in the Mis-

souri Court of Appeals: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Henry

R. Bratkowski, No. 028769 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl

Green, Jr. v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole,

No. 028771 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Ed-

ward Haynes, No. 028770 (Mo.App. 1976); In Re Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 028854 (Mo.App.

1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick, No. 028949

(Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald Wyrick,

No. 029110 (Mo.App. 1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr., et

al. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30180 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mis-

sourt, No. 30359 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Honorable Byron Kinder and Hon. James T. Riley, No.

30360 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Missouri

Board of Probation & Parole, No. 30365 (Mo.App. 1978);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Division of Corrections and Donald

Wyrick, No. 30373 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri and Donald Wyrick, No. 30374

(Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri,

No. 30436 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State

of Missouri, No. 30454 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. 30464 (Mo.App. 1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30474 (Mo.App.

1978); and Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Cole County Circuit

Court, No. 30520 (Mo.App. 1978); the four actions filed

in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri: Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV 78-2295

(1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of Missouri, No.

CV 78-2360 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. State of

A57

Missouri, No. CV 78-2510 (1978); and Clovis Carl Green,

Jr. v. State of Missouri, No. CV 78-2824 (1978); and the

fifteen actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County,

Missouri: Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick,

No. 28677 (1976); Clovis Carl Green v. Director, Division

of Corrections, No. 28710 (1976); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Department of Probation and Parole, No. 29133 (1977);

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Department of Probation and

Parole and Director, Division of Corrections, No. 30184

(1978); Clovis Carl Green, Hayes, et al. v. Donald W.

Wyrick, No. 30214 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr., et al. v.

Director, Division of Corrections, et al., No. 30270 (1978);

' Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30292

(1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Governor, et al., No.

30661 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. Board of Probation

and Parole, No. 30665 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Board of Probation and Parole, No. 30663 (1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Donald W. Wyrick, No. 30665 (1978);

Clovis Carl Green, et al. v. Director, Division of Correc-

tions, et al., No. 30685 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v.

Director, Division of Corrections, No. 30614 (1978); Clovis

Carl Green, Jr. v. Board of Probation and Parole, No.

30615 (1978); Clovis*Carl Green, Jr. v. Director, Division

of Corrections, No. 30634 (1978); Clovis Carl Green, Jr.

v. Director, Division of Corrections, et al., No. 30895 (1978).

In Green v. Wyrick, Misc. No. 76-8096 (8th Cir. June

3, 1976, unpublished opinion), the United States Court of

Appeals stated, “[T]here is strong reason to

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.