Related Background Information:

This document is part of a series in which gross misconduct by Judge Donald L. Graham and Magistrate Frank Lynch Jr. is documented at http://mmason.orgfree.com, http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com, and http://geocities.com/mcneilmason.  These websites allege and document gross misconduct which would otherwise be incredulous and beyond belief.  These websites demonstrate that federal judges will lie to protect themselves and each other and conceal their misconduct through the use of unpublished decisions.  Please refer members of the legal community to the websites http://mmason.orgfree.com, http://donaldlgraham.blogspot.com, and http://geocities.com/mcneilmason.  I contend here that the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Graham are abusing the IFP statutes in order to conceal Judge Graham's misconduct.  



INTRODUCTION
Judge Donald L. Graham and the Eleventh Circuit have made a mockery of the In Forma Pauperis statutes.  Judge Graham won't even give a reason for denying a motion.  The Eleventh Circuit will even go so far as to deny an application by saying an applicant is being "untruthful", but will not provide any proof of this allegation, in fact the Eleventh Circuit vehemently opposes providing proof for its allegations. 

Applicants Financial Status
During the relevant time period, I was not working and had ZERO income, however in all my numerous applications I included my wife's income at Taco Bell which varied at between $520.00 /mo. and $618 /mo. See IFP Motion, (This is not exact one filed in this matter, but it is the same with respect to motions filed in the district court and the 11th Circuit).   I was able to live thanks to my now deceased mother who provided me with unbelievable financial and moral support.  If the indigent can't pay the filing fee, then the right to appeal is dead.  



LEGAL STANDARD ON IFP APPLICATIONS

  According to Congress and the United States Supreme Court an in forma pauperis (IFP) application may only be denied if the allegation of poverty is untrue or THE action is totally frivolous and has no merit under any possible legal theory.  "The federal in forma pauperis 28 U.S.C. § 1915, allows an indigent litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. The statute protects against abuses of this privilege by allowing a district court to dismiss the case "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."  SEE DENTON v. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992).  "[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 U.S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations that are "fanciful," id., at 325, "fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction."  SEE DENTON v. HERNANDEZ, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).



AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL ABUSE OF IFP STATUTES- D.C. Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-16512

In this case I applied for IFP status and Judge Donald L. Graham denied the motion for no reason at all.  See Order (DE #9). In fact Judge Graham adamantly refused to state a reason for denying the IFP application.  See Order (DE #12).  In fact, Judge Graham mocked me for filing IFP and closed the case.  Order (DE #13). The following is the entirety of Judge Graham's order.  

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma Pauper's (D.E. # 2). UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion and the pertinent portions of the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.  DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this day of November 2000.  See Order (DE #9).

The story now takes on a strange, contradictory, and dishonest turn.   Upon Judge Graham's refusal to grant me IFP status, I then filed a notice of appeal.  Nextly, I then filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, however Judge Graham's Magistrate Judge, Frank Lynch Jr., denied this application without stating a reason as well.   See Order (DE #20).  I then appealed this denial to Judge Donald L. Graham, who then denied, without stating a reason, my motion to proceed on appeal IFP.  See Order (DE #22). 

After all the denials by Judge Graham and his Magistrate, I then filed an application to proceed on appeal IFP with the Eleventh Circuit.   The Eleventh Circuit granted the IFP application.   See Order Granting IFP.  Appeals briefs by the Appellee and Appellant were filed.  Initial Brief, Answer Brief, Reply Brief.   In my brief, I made the simple factual and legal argument that Judge Graham had acted arbitrarily in denying my IFP motions by simply not providing any explanation at all.  The law, as stated above, is that IFP motion may only be denied if the action is frivolous or the allegation of poverty is true.  In fact counsel for Appellees, who argued for Judge Graham, didn't know why Judge  Graham denied the IFP motion.  “It appears (emphasis added for obvious reasons) that the district court based its denial of Mason’s Motions to Proceed in IFP status on its determination that Mason was not a pauper.” See Defendant/Appellees Answer Brief, pg. 12.  Judge Graham gave himself permission not provide either legal explanation.  The Eleventh Circuit, in yet another unpublished decision,  affirmed Judge Graham's arbitrary denial and justified it by saying:
<>"Marcellus Mason appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  In his initial brief, Mason contends that because the trial court provided no explanation in denying his motion, the district court acted  arbitrarily and its decision must be reversed. In his reply brief Mason argues for the  first time that he did not follow the district court's order to pay the filing fee because  he could not afford to pay the filing fee...Further, this Court does not address issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. <>"   See Unpublished Decision Case No. 01-16512. 
I then filed a motion for rehearing which the Eleventh Circuit rejected out of hand without comment. 

“It appears (emphasis added for obvious reasons) that the district court based its denial of Mason’s Motions to Proceed in IFP status on its determination that Mason was not a pauper.” See Defendant/Appellees Answer Brief, pg. 12.


D.C. Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham/Lynch, 11th Circuit Case No. 01-13664

A motion to proceed in forma pauperis was filed in this matter on June 25, 2001.  In fact, I filed two of these motions begging  Judge Graham to rule on this motion.  I also included copies of my current bills to show that my financial situation was poor.  See Exhibits.  September 10, 2001, or three months after the appeal was docketed with the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Graham referred the IFP motion to his Magistrate, Frank Jr., for consideration.  See Order of Reference.   On  September 24, 2001, the Magistrate, Frank Jr., denied my IFP motion because in the past other motions had denied. See DE-877.  On  September 24, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit sent me a letter acknowledging Graham's denial of my IFP motion.   See 11th Cir Sept. 24, 2001 Letter.   The Eleventh Circuit got in the act of arbitrary denial of IFP motions. See 11thCir. Denial.  Without offering so much as a scintilla of proof, the Eleventh Circuit simply says "appellant is untruthful".  See 11thCir Order Denying IFP.   On December 15, 2001, I filed a motion reconsideration and clarification of denial of IFP.  See Reconsideration Motion.   This motion asked the court what proof it had that my application was not truthful, however, the Eleventh Circuit simply denied the motion again and refused yet again to offer any proof.  See Reconsideration Denial (Second Denial). 


Judge Graham has extensive history of Denying IFP Motions without providing a legal Reason
Unbeknown to Judge Graham and the Eleventh Circuit,  I was  compiling a digital record of their  arbitrary denials of  in forma pauperis motions and applications.  

Judge Graham has consistently denied in forma pauperis motions with so much offering a single explanation in the following instances, (this list not collectively exhausted):

 

Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #9, 11-2-2000), see above documents. 

Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #10,

11-2-2000)

Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #13,

11-21-2000)

Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #20,

11-21-2000)1
<>Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #22, 2-13-01) (“After careful review of the file and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Lynch's ruling is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.72; see also Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company, 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994}.). This assessment is odd, problematic, and counter to clearly established law for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as a matter of common sense, this court is not in position to state that Magistrate’s “ruling is not clearly erroneous nor is it contrary to law, ” because the Magistrate did not tell anybody what his reasons were for denying the motion. Secondly, to the extent that is can be actually stated that the Magistrate actually set forth his reasons for denial, the Magistrate simply refers to the district court’s previous denial, which themselves did not state a reason for denial. This is illustrative of a perverted logic and kind of legitimacy based upon a prior illegitimate act. Thirdly, as all the previous problems were not enough, the Magistrate denied a motion to proceed on appeal of a final judgment which is dispositive. The history of the S.D. Fla is that district judges decide dispositive motions for in forma pauperis. More importantly, courts have proscribe a Magistrate from denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The fact of the matter is the Defendants themselves don’t know why this Court denied Mason’s in forma pauperis motions. On appeal, D.C. Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, 11th Cir. Case No. 00-16512, the Defendants actually stated: “It appears (emphasis added for obvious reasons) that the district court based its denial of Mason’s Motions to Proceed in IFP status on its determination that Mason was not a pauper.” See Defendant/Appellees Answer Brief, pg. 12.

Marcellus M. Mason v. Heartland Library Cooperative, Case No. 00-14202-CV-Graham Case No. 00-14202-CV-Graham, (DE #9, 11-2-2000)


<>Case No. 00-14202-CV-Graham, (DE #12, 11-21-2000). Interestingly enough, rather than this court providing the required lawful reasons for denial, this Court interjected its own personal feelings and stated, “Rather than pay the filing fees, Plaintiff has filed another Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. This is contrary to the Court’s explicit instruction in its November 1, 2000 order.” 

 

1 This denial offers some reason, but Plaintiff is not smart enough to tell what is meant by: “Judge Graham denied Plaintiff's original motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 2, 2000, and further noting that on November 8, 2000 Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis which was also denied by Judge Graham en November 21, 2000, and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff's previously filed in forma pauperis motions with the instant motions and has found the relevant difference being Plaintiff's spouse having employment income of $6l8.00 per month as indicated in the most recent motions”

Case No. 00-14202-CV-Graham, (DE #19, 1-5-2001). This is a Magistrate denial for the same unknown reason as Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #20, 11-21-2000)2.

 

Case No. 00-14202-CV-Graham, (DE #22, 02-13-2001). This denial has the exact problems as Case No. 00-14201-CV-Graham, (DE #22, 2-13-01).

Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. David Flowers, Case No. 00-14116

 

Case No. 00-14116, (DE #10, 3-23-2001). Motion filed on November 6, 2000 (DE # 6), it took this Court four months to deny the motion without stating a reason.

 

Heartland Library Cooperative, et.al., v. Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. , Case No. 00-14240-CV­Graham

Case No. 00-14240-CV-Graham, (DE #43, 04-30-2001). ). As if denial itself was not bad enough, this Court also denied a motion for clarification requesting a reason for denial of in forma pauperis status. (DE #42, 4-26-01);(DE #43).


2 This denial offers some reason, but Plaintiff is not smart enough to tell what is meant by: “Judge Graham denied Plaintiff's original motion to proceed in forma pauperis on November 2, 2000, and further noting that on November 8, 2000 Plaintiff filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis which was also denied by Judge Graham en November 21, 2000, and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiff's previously filed in forma pauperis motions with the instant motions and has found the relevant difference being Plaintiff's spouse having employment income of $6l8.00 per month as indicated in the most recent motions”


01-14230-CV-Graham, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, (DE #56). The State Court allowed Mason to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court disallowed Mason the opportunity fight off a judgment awarding attorney’s fees of $5340.00 when it knew for a fact that such a award would bankrupt Mason. (DE #48, pg. 4);(DE #51).

 

01-14230-CV-Graham, (DE #57, 3-12-02)

 

Case No. 01-14310-CV-Graham, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners, et.al.

Case No. 01-14310-CV-Graham, (DE #101). This is prospective denial.

Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, 11th Cir. Case No. 01-13664-A (DE #877, 9-18-2001), Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Heartland Library Cooperative, et.al., . Denied by a Magistrate.  See above documents. 

(“and noting that in other actions filed by Plaintiff, Judge Graham has denied Plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Case Nos. 00-14116, 00-14201, 00-14202, 00-14240), and further noting that this Court has compared Plaintiffs previously filed IFP motions and accompanying affidavits with the instant motion and affidavit and has found no relevant difference”) Case No. 99-14027-CV-Graham, (DE #906, 9-18-2001), 11th Cir. Case No. 02-10868-A

 

Case No. 01-14078-CV-Graham, Marcellus M. Mason, Jr. v. Highlands County Board of County Commissioners. (DE #8, 9-18-2001). Plaintiff’s motion was filed on 3/12/01 (DE #2). It took this Court more than six months to create a reason to deny this motion. As a matter of fact, Mason had to file two motions for a ruling on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (DE #5);(DE #7). As a matter of fact, this Court was in violation of S.D.Fla. Local Rule 7.1.B.3 which calls for hearing on motion in 90 days, this Court took 180+ days.