HAROLD ARTHUR HILL ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS MONEY ORDER CO., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to allege denial of federal rights under color of state law.
Appellants, an inmate and his mother, sued for damages alleging deprivation of civil rights. They claimed an inmate's trust account was overdrawn due …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deprivation Of Civil Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)) upon their complaint seeking dámages for claimed deprivation of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Appellant Harold Hill is an inmate of Folsom Prison; appellant Mrs. Omie B. Hill is Harold’s mother. The complaint avers that in December of 1966 Mrs. Hill sent an American Express money order in the sum of $11 to her son’s prison trust account. In February 1967 Harold was notified that the money order had been dishonored by American Express and that his trust account was overdrawn. He complains that he has been thereby prevented from purchasing personal items from the prison canteen due to the negligence of American Express and the conduct of the California Department of Corrections.
The District Court denied appellants’ motion on the ground that there is nothing in the complaint to indicate that any federal rights were denied and that the defendant was acting under color of state law. We agree with the District Court. (Cf. Aragon v. Wathen (9 Cir. 1965) 352 F. 2d 77; United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen (7 Cir. 1954) 213 F. 2d 294.)
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion.
The order is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 213 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1954)
- Aragon v. Wathen, 352 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1965)