Leonard Archie Smith v. John H. Carmichael, Jr., James Doctor, Jr., 810 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Leonard Archie Smith v. John H. Carmichael, Jr., James Doctor, Jr., 810 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. Charlottesville School Board (vawd, 1996-10-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Charlottesville School Board
W.D. Va. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See S & R, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 810 F.2d 195 , 1987 WL 36222 , *3 (4th Cir.1987) (unpublished opinion) (“[Plaintiff] has demonstrated no actionable harm from any such technical violation that would justify monetary relief.”); Halasz v. University of New England, 816 F.Supp. 37, 45-46 (D.Me.1993) (“While the failure to include the name of the coordinator in [Defendant’s] notice of its nondiscrimination policy constitutes a technical violation of the regulation, the Court finds that without a showing of harm flowing from the violation Plaintiff is entitled to no relief.”); Unite…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Leary v. Shinn
D. Ariz. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
MM 2 ¶ 7.) 3 The Supreme Court, “in holding that a State must provide counsel for an indigent 4 appellant on his first appeal as of right, [has] recognized the superior ability of trained 5 counsel in the ‘examination into the record, research of the law, and marshalling of 6 arguments on [the appellant’s] behalf.’” Jones, 463 U.S. at 751 (second alteration in 7 original) (quoting Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 358 (1963)); see also United States 8 v. Ricks, 810 F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1987) (“Decisions by appellate counsel concerning which 9 legal issues will be presented on app…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Justice v. Shinn
D. Ariz. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Here, the undersigned finds that the state 26 court’s finding that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise additional 27 claims on direct appeal is supported by the record before this Court and was not an 28 unreasonable application of Strickland. - 69 - Case 2:18-cv-03144-RCC-EJM Document 19 Filed 12/22/20 Page 70 of 78 1 The Supreme Court, “in holding that a State must provide counsel for an indigent 2 appellant on his first appeal as of right, [has] recognized the superior ability of trained 3 counsel in the ‘examination into the record, research of the law, and mar…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leonard Archie Smith
v.
John H. Carmichael, Jr., James Doctor, Jr.
86-7275.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 21, 1987.
810 F.2d 195
1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1158
1987 WL 36245
Unpublished

810 F.2d 195

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Leonard Archie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John H. CARMICHAEL, Jr., James Doctor, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-7275.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 31, 1986.
Decided Jan. 21, 1987.

Before HALL and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Leonard Archie Smith, appellant pro se.

T. Travis Medlock, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, for appellees.

PER CURIAM:

1

Leonard A. Smith, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the dismissal of his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because we believe Smith has stated a claim, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

2

In his complaint, Smith asserts that he was informed by the deputy warden that he was removed from the Inmate Advisory Council because he had transmitted, as a representative of the council, certain information to his attorney and to the South Carolina Department of Corrections without first obtaining the approval of the prison administration. Smith denies that he corresponded as a council representative. He states rather that he wrote to the Department of Corrections and to his attorney as an individual inmate and as a class action plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit. He alleges that his removal was in retaliation for his having informed the Department and his attorney about living conditions within the prison.

3

It is well-established that state prisoners have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts which a state may not abridge nor impair; nor may it impermissibly burden its exercise. Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345, 1347 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 913 (1979). Once judicial proceedings have been commenced, the state may not punish a prisoner for having sought judicial remedies. Id. Liberally construed, as is required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Smith's pro se complaint states a claim against the defendants for their having placed an impermissible burden on his right of access to the courts. The denial of privileges otherwise within the discretion of prison officials to grant or deny may violate this right if the denial is in retaliation for the exercise of the right of access to the courts, including the reasonable opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of attorneys. Russell v. Oliver, 552 F.2d 115 (4th Cir.1977); Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941). Smith's allegation that his removal from the Inmate Advisory Council was in retaliation for communication with his attorney about ongoing litigation states a cognizable claim and therefore dismissal on Smith's complaint alone was error. Smith should be given the opportunity to prove his claim.

4

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

5

VACATED AND REMANDED.