Case: Harris v. Champion

4:90-cv-00448 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Filed Date: May 22, 1990

Closed Date: 1997

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This action arose from a habeas petition filed on May 22, 1990 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. After he was convicted of forcible sodomy, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and sentenced to 15 years in state prison, the petitioner invoked his right to appeal and requested counsel on September 29, 1988. Due to understaffing/ underfunding, the Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender did not immediately file that appeal. Instead, on May 11, 1989, the public …

This action arose from a habeas petition filed on May 22, 1990 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

After he was convicted of forcible sodomy, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and sentenced to 15 years in state prison, the petitioner invoked his right to appeal and requested counsel on September 29, 1988. Due to understaffing/ underfunding, the Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender did not immediately file that appeal. Instead, on May 11, 1989, the public defender's office filed for an application for late appeal. On May 18, 1989, the request was granted on the grounds that “through no fault of his own” the petitioner was denied a direct appeal. On April 16, 1990, the petitioner received a letter from the Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender informing him that a brief for his case would not be filed for another three years. While his case was still pending in state court, the petitioner filed this habeas petition, which sought a remedy for the Oklahoma appellate public defender's delay in filing a brief for his criminal appeal. The petitioner initially filled this case pro se. He claimed that the delays he encountered while trying to get the public defender to file his brief on appeal were a violation of due process, equal protection, and his right to counsel. Harris v. Champion, 938 F.2d 1062, 1064-65 (10th Cir. 1991).

A Magistrate Judge recommended that the state's motion to dismiss be granted on the grounds that:

Respondents move to dismiss the [habeas petition,] alleging Harris has not yet exhausted his state remedies. Specifically, Respondents point out that Petitioner is currently pursuing a direct appeal....Where a state prisoner has pending an appeal in the state court ..., comity requires a federal court abstain from using its federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.
938 F.2d 1062, 1064 (10th Cir. 1991). The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissing the case without prejudice; the petitioner appealed.

On June 17, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision to dismiss. On appeal, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to meet the exhaustion requirement. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument, concluding that the petitioner did not need to exhaust state remedies prior to petitioning federal habeas relief because the failure to exhaust was directly linked to the petitioner’s constitutional claims. 938 F.2d 1062, 1067-69 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court found that the record provided by the petitioners showed substantial delay, however, it did not fault the Appellate Public Defenders Office for creating the delay. 938 F.2d 1062, 1065-66 (10th Cir. 1991); Hill v. Reynolds 942 F.2d 1494, 1496 (10th Cir. 1991).

In the same opinion, The Court consolidated this case with two others (Bunton v. Cowley, No. 90-6316, 936 F.2d 582 (table) (10th Cir. 1991), and Hacker v. Saffle, No. 91-6042, 936 F.2d 583 (table) (10th Cir. 1991)) and remanded them all, directing that counsel be appointed and that they be considered, together with any other pending habeas actions raising a similar claim, in a full hearing, conducted:

as expeditiously as possible, into possible systemic delays of the Oklahoma Appellate Public Defender's Office in preparing and filing appellate briefs for their indigent clients. The hearing should address the time that has been required and is expected to be required in the future to file appellate briefs and the reasons for the delays.
938 F.2d 1062, 1071 (10th Cir. 1991).The Court instructed that "All interested parties should be encouraged to work together to suggest possible solutions to the court to correct any constitutional deficiencies that may be found," and directed the district court to "enter orders specifically addressing and remedying any constitutional violations that may be found." 938 F.2d 1062, 1071 (10th Cir. 1991).

The opinion was later amended on July 1, 1991, after the Oklahoma Attorney General and the state warden filed a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc; the order was modified to consolidate only similar cases that arose in the Northern District. 938 F.2d 1062, 1073 (1991). In the end, there were 10 consolidated cases (4:92−cv−00068; 4:92−cv−00526; 4:90−cv−00769; 4:92−cv−00755; 4:91−cv−00989; 4:88−cv−00631; 4:92−cv−00371; 4:92−cv−00444; 4:92−cv−00512).

On remand, the petitioners submitted evidence revealing that the Public Defender office only filed three percent of the briefs within six months of the date they were due, fifty-six percent of the briefs were at minimum three years late, and thirty-one percent of the briefs had yet to be filled. The evidence also showed that almost all of the non-capital felony appeals filed in 1990 and 1991 that required Public Defender briefs had not been filed by the beginning of 1992. The average delay for an indigent appellant was two to four years. Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1550 (10th Cir. 1994).

The petitioners filed a supplemental and amended complaint that named the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and its individual members, the Public Defender and its board members and administrative officers as well as all previously mentioned defendants, in July 1992. 15 F.3d 1538, 1551 (10th Cir. 1994).The petitioner asserted habeas claims and claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983. In addition, the petitioners filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals from granting further time extensions for the Public Defender, and a motion for partial summary judgment for the release of petitioners who had been or were expected to be in custody for 11.7 months or more without receiving a final judgment of their appeal. Id.

On October 15, 1992, the district court held a hearing on the pending motions. The court determined that the delays in the Oklahoma criminal appellate system reached the level of constitutional violations, and rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the state legislature was the only authority that could provide a remedy for those constitutional violations. The court provided its own possible remedy:

to release any petitioner whose appeal had not been fully briefed and submitted to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for decision within fourteen months of the date of conviction. Each petitioner would be released on his or her personal recognizance until the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion; the State could apply for special terms and conditions of release in individual cases.
Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1551 (10th Cir. 1994). Both parties were given until October 23 to comment on the court’s proposal and the court would issue a ruling thereafter.

However, no ruling was made. In January 1993, some of the petitioners began filing mandamus petitions with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting a ruling by the district court. On February 18, 1993, the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order designating a three-judge district court panel to determine the common issues of law and fact in all the habeas cases claiming delay in adjudication of direct criminal appeals within Oklahoma. Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1552 (10th Cir. 1994).

On March 26, 1993, an order was entered in the mandamus proceedings by the Court of Appeals directing the district court panel to show cause why it should not be ordered

“to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Harris cases insofar as those cases seek habeas relief because of delays by the [Public Defender] in preparing and filing briefs in petitioners' direct criminal appeals” no later than May 10, 1993; and “to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Harris cases insofar as those cases seek habeas relief because of delays by the [Attorney General] or the [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals]” no later than September 10, 1993.
Harris v. United States Dist. Ct., Nos. 93–527, at 7–8 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 1993) (unpublished order). The following day, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals filed a motion to dismiss and summary judgment in favor of the defendants on grounds that the petitioners failed to exhaust all state remedies.

On April 1, 1993, the petitioners filed a motion to disqualify two members of the district court panel. Both motions were orally denied during a status conference on April 6, 1993, with the exception that Judge Thomas R. Brett, agreed to recuse himself on any claims for damages because his uncle was a member of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals until his death three months before. 15 F.3d 1538, 1552 (10th Cir. 1994).

On April 22, 1993, after the district court indicated no objection to meeting the deadlines set forth in the show cause order, the Court of Appeals entered a mandamus order directing the district court to enter its findings and conclusions. The Court also requested the district court to consider the issue of cumulative delay in a separate ruling due September 10, 1993. 15 F.3d 1538, 1552 (10th Cir. 1994).

On May 6, 1993, the district court submitted its findings of fact and conclusions of law and certified its ruling as final for purposes of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54(b).15 F.3d 1538, 1552 (10th Cir. 1994). The district court concluded that it was constitutional for an appeal process to take up to sixteen months beginning with the filling of notice of an appeal through the filing of appellate briefs. Id. The delay of filing appellate briefs was systemic, however, the court determined that in order to decide whether the delay gave rise to independent due process violations would require for the court to consider each habeas petitioner’s case individually. Further, the court held that “any habeas petitioner whose direct criminal appeal had been either affirmed or reversed with prejudice to retrial was not entitled to habeas relief as a result of delay in the appellate process.” 15 F.3d 1538, 1553 (10th Cir. 1994). Last, the court held that habeas petitioners would have to exhaust the issue of delay in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals before filing in federal court in future cases.

Petitioners filed their notice of appeal from the district court’s order on May 28, 1993. In August 1993, both parties submitted evidence to the court concerning delays by the Attorney General, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and cumulative delays in the system. The court was also given notice that two pieces of legislation going into effect on July 1, 1993, would help speed up the appellate process. 15 F.3d 1538, 1553 (10th Cir. 1994).The first act created an Emergency Appellate Division of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that could be activated if more than 100 non-capital felony appeals were at issue and pending in the clerk’s office. The second act cut the amount of time allowed for editing appeals in misdemeanor and felony cases in half. Instead of 180 days, the appeal must be submitted within 90 days from the date that the judgment was pronounced. Id.

On September 8, 1993, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law for the delay by the Attorney General and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in addition to the issue of cumulative delay throughout the system. Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1554 (10th Cir. 1994)(Harris II).The court determined there was no evidence of systemic delay in filing briefs by the Attorney General nor by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Further, the court held that, “a delay in adjudicating an appeal of more than two years from the notice of appeal or order permitting an appeal out of time to the issuance of opinion would be presumed to be unconstitutional 'absent a showing of good and sufficient cause or special circumstances.'” Id.. The court also again determined that a habeas petitioner needed to raise the issue of unconstitutional delay in the Oklahoma court of Criminal Appeals and permit it to take appropriate action prior to asserting the issue in federal court. Id.

On September 28, 1993, the petitioners appealed from the district court’s September 8th order. Both appeals were consolidated by the Tenth Circuit’s order on October 14, 1993. 15 F.3d 1538, 1554 (10th Cir. 1994). In the appeal, the petitioners asserted that the district court’s findings regarding due process, equal protection, and ineffective assistance of counsel were incomplete and erroneous. Id. The petitioners also argued that Judge Brett should have recused himself on the habeas claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §455. Id. Last, the petitioners raised an issue with the district court's failure to award interim attorney fees against the State for work performed by counsel on behalf of petitioners. Id.

Senior Judge James O. Ellison of the Federal District Court of Northern Oklahoma finally granted the Oklahoma Court of Appeals request for summary judgment and dismissal for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies on December 27, 1993. The order disposed of all the petitioner’s claims against the Oklahoma Court defendants and the OIDS defendants. Harris v. Champion, 51 F. 3d 901,905 (10th Cir. 1995). Petitioners appealed on January 12, 1994.

On January 26, 1994, The Tenth Circuit responded to the petitioners' appeal and held: (1) there was a rebuttable presumption that a state’s process need not be exhausted if the direct criminal appeal was pending for more than two years without final action by the state; (2) mismanagement of resources and underfunding were not constitutionally sufficient reasons to justify excessive delay; (3) usually, the petitioner must make some particularized showing of prejudice from delay to establish due process violation; (4) excessive delay in filing appellate brief may violate the petitioner’s right to effective counsel; and (5) refusal by Judge Brett to recuse himself from the district court panel was harmless error. 15. F.3d 1538,1538.

The action was then remanded to the district court to conduct the necessary inquiry in order to create the proper record for review. 15 F.3d 1538, 1565. The Court did not address the petitioners’ equal protection claims. 15 F.3d 1538, 1568. The Court determined that no habeas relief could be provided for the petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because an appellate brief was filed on behalf of all but one petitioner in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. 15 F.3d 1538, 1570. The Court did not consider the claims against the Oklahoma Court defendants and the OIDS defendants, only the habeas claims against the defendant wardens. Further, the Court directed that Judge Brett recuse himself from all further proceedings related to the issues on remand, including any future individual hearings. 15 F. 3d. 1572.Finally, the Court denied the petitioners’ request for interim attorney fees. 15 F. 3d. 1573.

On March 29, 1994, on remand, the new three-judge district court panel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, denied the petitioner’s motion for immediate release, and dismissed the petitioner’s substantive issues without prejudice. Harris v. Champion, 48 F.3d 1127, 1130 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court determined that the petitioner did not present to the state appellate court the non-delay claims that he sought to pursue in federal court, thus, the delay in adjudicating the petitioners’ direct criminal appeal was not responsible for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust those claims. Id. The petitioner appealed.

On September 27, 1994, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the appellant’s habeas petition presented both exhausted and unexhausted claims, therefore, the entire petitioners should have been dismissed rather than dismissing only the unexhausted claims.48 F.3d 1127, 1130 (10th Cir. 1995). Once again, the Tenth Circuit vacated the ruling and remanded the action to the district court, directing the district court to determine whether the appellant's previously unexhausted claims had since been exhausted. If the claims were not exhausted, the district court was instructed to dismiss appellant’s appellate delay claim and permit the appellant to refile his habeas petition only his exhausted claim. Id.

Both parties petitioned for rehearing and the appellants additionally petitioned for rehearing in banc. The petitioner-appellant argued that the Tenth Circuit Court’s opinion in Harris v. Champion, 938 F.2d 1062 (10th Cir. 1991) permitted him to maintain unexhausted claims in federal court. Further, the September 27th decision reversed the progress made since the Tenth Circuit’s first decision in 1991. The petitioner-appellees argued that the court erred in requiring the appellant to exhaust all other habeas claims, further exacerbating the delay that he already suffered.

On February 21, 1995, the Tenth Circuit denied both petitions for rehearing on the merits and the rehearing in banc. The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the appellate delay claim without waiting to exhaust his other claims by submitting another habeas petition only raising the one claim. Harris v. Champion, 48 F .3d 1127, 1134 (10th Cir. 1995).

On remand, the parties settled the attorney's fees issue.

On March 30, 1995, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the subsequent issues against the OIDS defendants and the Oklahoma Court defendants. The Court held: (1) that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had Eleventh Amendment immunity; (2) the individual judges involved in the lawsuit also had Eleventh Amendment immunity; (3) claim for injunctive relief was moot as to pending cases; (4) defendants in state criminal cases who claimed that their Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by excessive delays in processing their appeals lacked standing to seek injunction to compel judges to refrain from granting extensions of time to OIDS to file appeals on the defendant’s behalf; (5) members of the board of the indigent defense system had qualified immunity; (6) administrators also had qualified immunity; and (7) claim for injunctive relief was moot. Harris v. Champion, 51 F. 3d 901, 901 (10th Cir. 1995).

There was some subsequent litigation. On October 24, 1996, Senior Judge James O. Ellison denied the requested relief from the petitioner’s separate pro se litigation that was permitted through the Tenth Circuit’s February 21, 1995 opinion. There is nothing else substantive in the docket sheet, so it seems the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Kimberly Goshey (5/31/2019)

People


Judge(s)

Ebel, David M. (Colorado)

Ellison, James O. (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Booth, David E (Oklahoma)

Hilfiger, Roger Henry (Oklahoma)

Neville, Jack LeDrew Jr (Oklahoma)

Seymour, R. Thomas (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Davis, Lisa Tipping (Oklahoma)

Imel, John M (Oklahoma)

Miller, Jennifer Barnes (Oklahoma)

Rinehart, Sandra D. (Oklahoma)

Judge(s)

Ebel, David M. (Colorado)

Ellison, James O. (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Booth, David E (Oklahoma)

Hilfiger, Roger Henry (Oklahoma)

Neville, Jack LeDrew Jr (Oklahoma)

Seymour, R. Thomas (Oklahoma)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Davis, Lisa Tipping (Oklahoma)

Imel, John M (Oklahoma)

Miller, Jennifer Barnes (Oklahoma)

Rinehart, Sandra D. (Oklahoma)

Rooney, John Edward Jr (Oklahoma)

Slayton, Diane L (Oklahoma)

Watts, Beverly Quarles (Oklahoma)

Wettstein, Gail L (Oklahoma)

Wycoff, Mary Sue (Oklahoma)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

Aug. 24, 2000 Docket

Order Granting Rehearing and Amending Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

938 F.2d 1062

June 17, 1991 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

15 F.3d 1538

Jan. 26, 1994 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

48 F.3d 1126

Sept. 27, 1994 Order/Opinion

Order

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

48 F.3d 1127

Feb. 21, 1995 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus ad (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/1992)

May 22, 1990
11

ORDER by Senior Judge H. D. Cook dismissing case pltf's mo/appt cnsl DENIED. objs/pltf to R&R overruled, action dism w/out prej (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/1993)

Sept. 26, 1990
12

NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris from Dist. Court decision, [11−2] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/1993)

Oct. 4, 1990
16

CERTIFIED COPY of Judgment from USCA; judgment reversed & remanded, c/HDC (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/03/1993)

July 22, 1991
16

CERTIFIED COPY of Judgment from USCA reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court [Appeal [12−1] (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/21/1993)

July 22, 1991
52

supplemental & AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 13, 1992
58

MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris for preliminary injunction (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 30, 1992
59

BRIEF by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris in support of motion for preliminary injunction [58−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 30, 1992
60

APPENDIX by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris re [58−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 30, 1992
61

MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris for partial summary judgment (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 30, 1992
62

BRIEF by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris in support of motion for partial summary judgment [61−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

July 30, 1992
65

RESPONSE by defendant (Wardens & Maynard) Steve Hargett, defendant Stephen Kaiser, defendant Dan Reynolds to motion for preliminary injunction [58−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/13/1992)

Aug. 18, 1992
66

RESPONSE by defendant Wardens & Maynard Ron Champion, defendant Steve Hargett, amicus Natl Assn Crim Def to motion for partial summary judgment [61−1], to motion for preliminary injunction [58−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Aug. 18, 1992
70

REPLY by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris to response to motion for partial summary judgment [61−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Aug. 21, 1992
71

ANSWER by defendant Wardens & Maynard Ron Champion, defendant Steve Hargett, defendant Dan Reynolds to [52−1] to supplemental and amended complaint

Aug. 25, 1992
75

RESPONSE by defendant OK Indigent Def Sys to motion for partial summary judgment [61−1], to motion for preliminary injunction [58−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Sept. 9, 1992
76

ANSWER by defendant OK Indigent Def Sys to [52−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Sept. 9, 1992
79

ORDER by Senior Judge H. D. Cook in−court (evidentiary) hearing on all pending motions set for 10:00 10/15/92 (cc: all counsel 9−29−92) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 09/30/1992)

Sept. 29, 1992
80

MOTION by defendant Ron Champion, wardens & Gary Maynard to supplement response. o2j w/resp (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/19/1992 (Entered: 10/14/1992)

Oct. 9, 1992
81

RESPONSE by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Charles A Johnson to [61−1] motion for partial summary judgment (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/19/1992 (Entered: 10/14/1992)

Oct. 9, 1992
82

RESPONSE by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Charles A Johnson to [58−1] motion for preliminary injunction (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/19/1992 (Entered: 10/14/1992)

Oct. 9, 1992

MINUTES: Hearing held on pending motions. Mos/PSJ and Prel. Inj. taken under advisement. Ct to file Order of proposed remedies. Parties granted to 10/23/92 to file documentation re proposed remedies.(HDC−J)(E.Simpson−cr)rm (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/15/1992)

Oct. 15, 1992
83

3rd NOTICE by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris of advisement re: identity of pltfs & info re: pltfs (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Oct. 15, 1992
84

ORDER by Senior Judge H. D. Cook granting motion to supplement response in suppport of motion for partial summary judgment [80−1] (cc: mvt counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Oct. 15, 1992
85

SUPPLEMENTal response of Wardens & Maynard re motion response & documentation in supprt of resp to mo/partial summary judgment [66−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/19/1992)

Oct. 15, 1992
86

NOTICE by defendant OK Indigent Def Sys of submission of info re: direction of court. (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/1992)

Oct. 23, 1992
87

NOTICE by defendant OK Indigent Def Sys; comments & obj to remedial order by OIDS (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/1992)

Oct. 23, 1992
88

BRIEF (memorandum) FILED by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson in response to remedies proposed at hrg/10−15−92 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/1992)

Oct. 23, 1992
89

RESPONSE by defendant Attorney General to proposed order of 10−15−92 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/1992)

Oct. 23, 1992
90

NOTICE by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris of suggestions re:potential O addressing pltfs' mo/PSJ (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/1992)

Oct. 23, 1992
91

NOTICE by defendant Attorney General of clarification & correction to response to prop O of 10/15/92 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/29/1992)

Oct. 29, 1992
92

MOTION by defendant Attorney General to supplement [89−1] o&resp to file (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/05/1992)

Nov. 3, 1992
94

SUPPLEMENT by defendant Attorney General re response [89−1] (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/18/1992)

Nov. 17, 1992

TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on 10−15−92 on before HDC, ES−CR 55 pgs (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/19/1993)

Jan. 15, 1993
95

FOURTH NOTICE by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris & all others of advisement concerning the identity of pltfs information relating to pltfs. (agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/21/1993)

Jan. 20, 1993
96

ORDER by Senior Judge H. D. Cook that OIDS file status report within 10 days re: initial appellate briefs (cc: mvt counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/22/1993)

Jan. 21, 1993
97

STATUS REPORT by defendant OIDS (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/02/1993)

Feb. 1, 1993

MINUTE ORDER: Case reassigned to Judge Thomas R. Brett Please change your records to reflect the new case number of 90−C−448−B. All dates to remain the same (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/1993)

Feb. 8, 1993
98

MOTION by Chief Judge James O. Ellison for appointment of 3−judge trial panel. (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/24/1993)

Feb. 22, 1993
99

ORDER granting motion for appointment of 3−judge trial panel. [98−1] Judge Frank H. Seay, ED,Ok., Judge Thomas R. Brett, ND,Ok., and Judge Wayne E. Alley, WD,Ok. appointed, by Order of Monroe G. McKay, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals, l0th Circuit. (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/24/1993)

Feb. 22, 1993

MINUTE ORDER: Case assigned to panel of Judge Thomas R. Brett and Judge Wayne Alley and Judge Seay per Order from 10th Circuit Ct on 2/22/93 (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/24/1993)

Feb. 22, 1993

MINUTE ORDER by 3−judge panel: setting hearing on motion for partial summary judgment [61−1] 8:30 4/9/93 in Muskogee (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

Feb. 23, 1993
100

ORDER by Senior Judge H. D. Cook apprvng pymnt to Booth for $12,010.46 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/25/1993)

Feb. 24, 1993
101

ORDER from 10th, assigning 3 judge panel, Judge Seay, Judge Brett and Judge Alley (MMcKay−J) (agc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/01/1993)

March 1, 1993
102

MOTION −request− by defendant Ron Champion, defendant Attorney General, amicus OK Crim Defense, amicus Natl Assn Crim Def, defendant Steve Hargett, defendant Stephen Kaiser, defendant Bobby Boone, defendant Dan Reynolds, defendant Joy Hadwiger, defendant Michael Cody, defendant Edward Evans Jr, defendant Jack Cowley, defendant Neville Massie, defendant H N Scott, defendant Sue Frank, defendant Denise Spears, defendant Earl Allen, defendant Jim Sorrels, defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson, defendant OIDS, defendant Henry A Meyer III, defendant Richard Reeh, defendant Doug Parr, defendant Richard James, defendant Becky Pfefferbaum, defendant Patti Palmer, defendant E Alvin Schay for settlement conf hearing (O) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/04/1993)

March 4, 1993

MINUTE ORDER: Parties phoned and note from Jdg Brett read: The Jdg is circulating an order in this case & he wanted you to know the contents of it. There is a settlement conference set for 3/29/93 at 1 p.m. before MJ Pat Irwin in the WD/OK, Rm 5017 Fed Bldg. There is a pre−settlement conf hrg set for 3/18/93 at 1 p.m.,WD/OK, Rm 5017 Fed Bldg. Lawyers from outside the WD/OK who do not wish to be personally present at the pre−settlement conf hrg can appear by telephone if they wish, but they must notify MJ Irwin in advance. The attys are expected to be personally present at the hrg on 3/29/93.(Pre−settlement conf hrg set for 1:00 p.m. on 3/18/93 & settlement conf set for 1:00 p.m. on 3/29/93 (TRB−J) Parties phoned by dh. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/05/1993)

March 5, 1993
104

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Frank H. Seay, & Judge Wayne E. Alley that the counsel for petitioners & for the AG's office confer & arrive at a list of "core" cases which should be filed by 3/26/93 & in final form and available to Ct prior to 4/9/93 hrg. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/12/1993)

March 11, 1993
105

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Frank H. Seay, & Judge Wayne E. Alley granting motion for settlement conf hearing [102−1];settlement conf hrg set on 3/29/93 at 1:00 p.m. in Rm 5017 of WD/OK, Fed Cths, OKC,OK before MJ Pat Irwin; pre−settlement conf hearing set for 1:00 p.m. on 3/18/93 in Rm 5017 of WD/OK, Fed Cths, OKC, OKC before MJ Irwin. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/12/1993)

March 11, 1993
106

MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris to supplement , and to amend complaint.(O2J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

March 12, 1993
107

BRIEF by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris in support of motion to supplement [106−1], of motion to amend complaint.(O2J) [106−2] (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/15/1993)

March 12, 1993
108

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.(O&writ2J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/22/1993)

March 19, 1993
109

RESPONSE (BRIEF IN OPPOSITION) by defendant OIDS, defendant Henry A Meyer III, defendant Richard Reeh, defendant Doug Parr, defendant Richard James, defendant Becky Pfefferbaum, defendant Patti Palmer, defendant E Alvin Schay to motion to amend complaint [106−2] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/24/1993)

March 23, 1993

MINUTE ORDER: Order Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum is denied [108−1] ; The Panel hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 4/9/93 in OKC is oral arguments ONLY on R−56 motions;should the petitioner will to present addtl evidence, he may do so by affidavit of deposition by 4/6/93.(TRB−J,WA−J & FHS−CJ) Parties phoned by ho. ho (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/25/1993)

March 24, 1993

MINUTE ORDER by TRB: resetting motion for partial summary judgment [61−1] hearing for 10:00 4/9/93 IN OKLAHOMA CITY (cc: all counsel) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/25/1993)

March 25, 1993
110

RESPONSE by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris & attorney general to the Court's directives re: a list of "core" cases (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/26/1993)

March 26, 1993
111

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum and brf/suppt by petitioner to be present at hrg on 4/9/93 in ED/OK.(cc:mvt)(Cpy2Jdg) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 03/29/1993 (Entered: 03/29/1993)

March 29, 1993
112

RESPONSE (OBJECTION) by defts Wardens and defendant Attorney General and special appearance to pltfs' motion to allow the filing of a 2nd supplemental [106−1]and amended complaint. [106−2] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/30/1993)

March 29, 1993

MINUTE ORDER: In view of the show cause mandamus order of the 10th Circ Ct/Appeals of 3/26/93, Three−Jdg Panel has scheduling hearing set for 9:00 a.m. on 4/6/93 on the 3rd Floor Ctrm of Jdg Alley, Fed Cthouse, OKC, OK also and Germane to said mandamus order, F/F & C/L relative to the Harris cases common issues of law & fact concerning systemic due process delay due on or before 4/7/93 (cc: Jdg Alley, Jdg Seay, Jdg Irwin;Faxed to parties by ho & mailed to Henry Meyer, III by dh) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 03/31/1993)

March 29, 1993
113

MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris and pltfs requesting Jdg Brett & Jdg Alley to disqualify (implement 28:455)(O2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/02/1993 (Entered: 04/02/1993)

April 1, 1993
114

BRIEF by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris and pltfs in support of motion requesting Jdg Brett & Jdg Alley to disqualify (implement 28:455)(O2J) [113−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/02/1993)

April 1, 1993
115

NOTICE of appointment & authority to pay court appointed counsel.(HDC−J) (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/05/1993)

April 2, 1993

MINUTES: 3 JUDGE PANEL STATUS CONF, Ct discusses 4−9−93 hrg & set out schedule for hrg, Ptys to provide current list location of appellants by 4−14−93, Ptys to try to agree to core cases & statistical info by 4−9 hrg, Mots disqualify Judges Seay & Brett denied, Judge Brett will not handle damages cases, OCA to prepare history of Ct. ; (TRB, FS & WA−J's) Artesia, hrg held in OKC. (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/20/1993)

April 6, 1993
117

ORDER (AGENDA) by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Seay, and Judge Alley for 4/6/93 PT hrg (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/07/1993)

April 7, 1993
119

PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by defendant OIDS, defendant Henry A Meyer III, defendant Richard Reeh, defendant Doug Parr, defendant Richard James, defendant Becky Pfefferbaum, defendant Patti Palmer, defendant E Alvin Schay re: systemic delay issues (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
118

PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
120

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett granting writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum petition [111−1] for petitioner to be delivered to USM for WD/OK to appear before ct on 4/9/93 at 10:00 a.m. for purpose to testify & upon termination to be rtnd to custody of the Warden.W/I & delivered to USM & state. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
121

PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
122

APPENDIX by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris re [121−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
123

PROPOSED FINDINGS of fact and conclusions of law (by parties) deft Wardens. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993

WRIT issued to deliver Harris to USM/WDO on 4/9/93 for hrg at 10:00 a.m. & rtn Harris to custody of Warden upon termination of hrg.(RML−CLK) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/08/1993)

April 7, 1993
124

MOTION (APPLICATION) by deft Wardens, defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant OIDS to drop improperly joined pltfs & sever their cases or vacate consolidation orders (O2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/09/1993)

April 8, 1993
125

SUPPLEMENT by defendant OK Court of Appeals re documents [118−1] (Proposed F/F & C/L) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/09/1993)

April 8, 1993
126

RESPONSE by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris and pltfs to ct's 4/6/93 req/most current data re: pltfs. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/09/1993)

April 8, 1993
127

OBJECTIONS by defendant Ron Champion, defendant Attorney General, amicus OK Crim Defense, amicus Natl Assn Crim Def, defendant Steve Hargett, defendant Stephen Kaiser, defendant Bobby Boone, defendant Dan Reynolds, defendant Joy Hadwiger, defendant Michael Cody, defendant Edward Evans Jr, defendant Jack Cowley, defendant Neville Massie, defendant H N Scott, defendant Sue Frank, defendant Denise Spears, defendant Earl Allen, defendant Jim Sorrels, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson, defendant Henry A Meyer III, defendant Richard Reeh, defendant Doug Parr, defendant Richard James, defendant Becky Pfefferbaum, defendant Patti Palmer, defendant E Alvin Schay to OIDS' narrative. (fe, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/12/1993)

April 9, 1993
130

NOTICE by David Booth, atty for plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris, in letter form re: current recent data about pltfs, location of pltfs, raw data from 10th Circuit, & Mr. Farmer's Affidavit. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/15/1993)

April 9, 1993
128

NOTICE (PROPOSED CATEGORIES) by defendant Ron Champion, defendant Attorney General for determining the need for individual hrgs. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

April 13, 1993
129

SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION by defendant OIDS (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/14/1993)

April 13, 1993
131

ORDER ENTERED by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Frank H. Seay, and Judge Wayne E. Alley that the following persons be dropped as named pltfs in this consolidated actn: David Ray Botts, Solomon Broadus, Steve Brown, Quinn Johnson, Robert Johnson, Rodney McCullough, Carl Mitchell, Earnest Padillow, Floyd Price, Chester Ray Rolland, Thomas Sligar, Steven Williams, Kenneth J. Tubbs, Robert Anderson, Thomas Honeycutt, Gary Minard, [no first name] Cagle, [no first name] Carter, Floyd Harris, Roosevelt McCoy, Gregory Mundine, Donald O'Shields, [no first name] Shultz, Gerald Thompson, [no first name] Walling, & Eddie Young;frthr ordered that orders consolidating any actns brought by these individuals are vacated & actns are severed from this consolidated actn & ordered transferred to the respective district cts in which orig filed to procd in accrdnc w/relief sought in the initial petitions filed by the individuals. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/16/1993)

April 16, 1993
132

SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION by defendant OIDS re [129−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/21/1993)

April 20, 1993
133

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett denying pltfs' motion requesting Jdg Brett to disqualify (implement 28:455) [113−1] (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/22/1993)

April 21, 1993
134

MOTION by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson to extend time to file motion to dism/motion for SJ.(O2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/23/1993)

April 22, 1993
135

ORDER by Judge Wayne Alley denying motion requesting Jdg Alley to disqualify (implement 28:455) [113−1] (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/26/1993)

April 23, 1993
136

ORDER ENTERED by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Wayne E. Alley, & Judge Frank H. Seay finding the pltfs' motion for injunction [58−1] agnst deft OK Ct of Criminal Appeals is denied as moot. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/27/1993)

April 26, 1993
137

MOTION by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson to dismiss (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/1993)

April 27, 1993
138

BRIEF by defendant OK Court of Appeals, defendant James F Lane, defendant Gary L Lumpkin, defendant Tom Brett, defendant Ed Parks, defendant Charles A Johnson in support of motion to dismiss [137−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/28/1993)

April 27, 1993
139

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Frank H. Seay, and Judge Wayne E. Alley granting defts' motion to extend time to file motion to dism/motion for SJ [134−1] to 4/27/93. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) Modified on 04/29/1993 (Entered: 04/29/1993)

April 27, 1993
140

AFFIDAVIT of Nell Riggins re: Harris pltf Michael D. Farmer. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 04/29/1993)

April 28, 1993

REMARK: Letter to Judges from David Booth w/attachments received on 4/30/93. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/10/1993)

April 30, 1993
141

MOTION by Harris pltfs for attorney fees and expenses (Cpy2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/05/1993)

May 4, 1993
142

BRIEF by Harris pltfs in support of motion for attorney fees and expenses (Cpy2J) [141−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/05/1993)

May 4, 1993
144

STATUS REPORT by Harris petitioners of issues furnished to the 10th Circuit Ct/Appeals as directed by show cause order of 3/26/93. (cc:all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/1993)

May 6, 1993
145

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett in−court hearing set for 10:30 a.m. on 8/13/93 in 4:90−cv−00448 in the courtrm of Jdg Brett in Tulsa, OK ;Atty Gen directed to file on or before that date all appellee brfs not yet filed; frthr Atty Gen to furnish Ct at hrg w/curr rpt concerning such brf;OK Ct/Criminal Appeals is directed to furnish Ct at hrg a curr rpt re: decisions yet to be rendered by that Court. (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/1993)

May 6, 1993

REMARK: Ltr by Jdg Brett w/attached factual information−Harris petitioners form. (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/06/1993)

May 6, 1993
146

AFFIDAVIT of Harris Plaintiff Michael Farmer (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/11/1993)

May 10, 1993
147

MOTION by plaintiff Anthony Jerome Harris and authority for expedited evidentiary hearing (O2J) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/1993)

May 11, 1993
148

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE as addtl counsel of record for plaintiffs by R Thomas Seymour (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/1993)

May 11, 1993
149

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett, Judge Frank H. Seay, and Judge Wayne E. Alley tht the list of 36 cases attached as Exhibit A are inclded amng the Harris consol cases for purp of the F/C of the 3 Jdg Panel relative to issue of appellate delay;othr issues have been bifurcated.(See Order for Details) (cc: all counsel) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/13/1993)

May 13, 1993
150

ORDER by Judge Thomas R. Brett setting hearing on motion for attorney fees and expenses [141−1] at 10:00 a.m. on 5/27/93; pltfs sugg F/F & C/L due on or before 5/25/93 & defts' comb sugg F/F & C/L on bhlf of all defts. (cc: all counsel;parties phoned by dh on 5/14/93) (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/14/1993)

May 14, 1993
151

MOTION by defendant OIDS for summary judgment (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/1993)

May 17, 1993
152

BRIEF by defendant OIDS in support of motion for summary judgment [151−1] (djh, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 05/18/1993)

May 17, 1993

State / Territory: Oklahoma

Case Type(s):

Indigent Defense

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 22, 1990

Closing Date: 1997

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Oklahoma

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Oklahoma Court of Appeals (Tulsa), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Special Case Type(s):

Habeas

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Habeas relief

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 11,609.00

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Fetus Identity

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Race:

Race, unspecified