TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Glennon Hoppins v. Governor George C. Wallace

Glennon HOPPINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Governor George C. WALLACE, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Glennon Hoppins v. Governor George C. Wallace, 751 F.2d 1161 (11th Cir. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 28, 1985
Docket
No. 84-7392
Judges
Roney, Fay, Hatchett
Citations
751 F.2d 11611985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27770
Summary
Non-Argument Calendar.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Glennon Hoppins argues on appeal in his 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 , 1985 suit that his right of access to the courts requires that indigent inmates be permitted to mail unlimited legal correspondence at state expense. The state correctional officers contend their stamp policy permitting each indigent inmate two free 20-cent stamps a week and requiring them to pay for additional postage out of their own funds provides adequate access to the courts. The district court held that two free stamps a *1162 week provided Hoppins with adequate access to the courts. We affirm.

In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 , 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1496-97 , 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), the Supreme Court held that it “is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided at state expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents, with notarial services to authenticate them, and with stamps to mail them.” The Tenth Circuit has interpreted Bounds not to require states “to pay the postage on every item of legal mail each and every prisoner wishes to send.”

Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 359 (10th Cir.1978). The Twyman Court determined that the rights of prisoners must be balanced with budgetary constraints. It did not establish the minimum requirements a state must meet to provide indigent prisoners with adequate access to courts but focused instead on whether the individual plaintiff before it had been denied access. 584 F.2d at 359 . Since Twy-man’s litigation about which he sought access was not dismissed and no court sanction was imposed, his delay in mailing due to the prison postage policy was held to have not denied him access to the courts.

The present Alabama prison policy of furnishing inmates with postage for two free letters a week was a direct result of a federal court order entered in Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318, 334 (M.D.Ala.1976), aff'd in part sub nom. Newman v. State of Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915 , 98 S.Ct. 3144 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1160 (1978). In Pugh , Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. originally required five free letters a week, but reduced the number to two free letters a week in a March 5, 1976 unpublished order.

As noted by the magistrate and reflected in the record plaintiff Hoppins has an inclination to be very litigious and might well use more stamps if they were made available to him. He has filed numerous pleadings in this case, filed many cases prior to this one in a variety of courts, and he has filed four new 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983 actions since the instant case was commenced. Hoppins presented no evidence, however, that any case was dismissed or that any sanction was imposed by the courts due to the impact of the stamp policy. The district court focusing on reasonableness, properly upheld the constitutionality of the prison policy based on the undisputed facts, and the guidelines established in Judge Johnson’s Pugh opinions. The district court did not err in holding that the furnishing of two free stamps a week to indigent prisoners is (1) adequate to allow exercise of the right to access to the courts, and (2) adequate to allow a reasonable inmate to conduct reasonable litigation in any court. The constitutional right to access to the courts entitles indigent prisoners to some free stamps as noted in Bounds but not unlimited free postage as is urged by the plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 9 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1985: 21986: 31987: 11988: 11989: 21990: 21992: 21993: 11994: 11995: 11997: 12003: 12012: 12020: 12022: 32024: 22025: 12026: 319852026peak 1986 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maldonado v. Nassau County Sheriff's OfficeNo. 3:20-cv-01109 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2022)
  2. Kim King and Kent Norman v. Victor Atiyeh814 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1987)
  3. Judson Warren White v. C.M886 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1989)
  4. Van Poyck v. Singletary106 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir. 1997)
  5. THOMAS v. PURNELLNo. 4:23-cv-00180 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2024)
  6. Draper Frank Woodyard v. Michael MitchellNo. 1:25-cv-00218 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2026)

Most recent

  1. Draper Frank Woodyard v. Foley Police DeptNo. 1:25-cv-00220 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 10, 2026)
  2. Draper Frank Woodyard v. Foley Police DepartmentNo. 1:25-cv-00333 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 6, 2026)
  3. Draper Frank Woodyard v. Michael MitchellNo. 1:25-cv-00218 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2026)
  4. Eldridge v. GranthumNo. 2:24-cv-00194 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 3, 2025)
  5. Dustin v. PalmerNo. 3:24-cv-00316 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2024)
  6. THOMAS v. PURNELLNo. 4:23-cv-00180 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2024)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) 4,513
Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1978) 184
Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976) 155
N. H. Newman v. State of Ala., Jerry Lee Pugh, for Himself & Others Similarly Situated v, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977) 77

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list