Womble v. Chrisman
What’s at stake
This appeal before the Tenth Circuit raises important questions about access to courts and the link between incarceration and litigation costs. Fees and other costs are used to retaliate against incarcerated people and suppress court claims about prison conditions. Our amicus brief explains the chilling effect that fee awards have on incarcerated people exercising their constitutional right to petition the courts.
Summary
Joseph Z. Womble is incarcerated in James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. He asserted two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the former Warden and Deputy Warden at the facility violated his Eighth Amendment rights to sanitary prison facilities and adequate nutrition. Joseph initially litigated his claims pro se, later benefiting from the assistance of court-appointed counsel. He opposed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by pointing to an unsworn letter from a fellow person who is incarcerated in the same facility; portions of his own declarations and deposition testimony; and an expert report regarding the nutritional quality and quantity of the food served to Joseph. In a lengthy opinion, the district court determined that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, because the rights Joseph asserted were clearly established at the time of the alleged violations. The court concluded, however, that Joseph had not identified enough evidence to support his food-deprivation or inadequate facilities claims, and held in favor of the defendants on both grounds. Joseph appealed. The appeal was fully briefed in the fall of 2024 and is now awaiting a decision from the Tenth Circuit.
Back in the district court, defendants filed a motion for costs. They sought to recover approximately $5,500 in legal costs from Joseph that they used to pay for a deposition transcript and two depositions. They explained that the costs were expended in the course of filing for summary judgment, making them reasonable and recoverable expenses. Joseph opposed, arguing that he is indigent, and his claims were meritorious. The court disagreed, pointing to a $9,000 balance in Joseph’s commissary account, without considering the source of the money, Joseph’s financial responsibilities inside or outside of prison, and his limited ability to make more money while incarcerated. The existence of that money, the court explained, meant that “Plaintiff is not indigent.” The court characterized many of Joseph’s arguments as “frivolous,” and noted, “[w]hile he may have other plans for these funds, the fact remains that Defendants were forced to defend the claims asserted by Plaintiff and they prevailed.”
Joseph’s attorney filed an appeal of the cost order. Public Justice filed an amicus brief in support of that appeal.
Core legal problem
Our amicus brief challenges the district court’s indigency analysis by illustrating the additional challenges to economic mobility posed by being incarcerated. We describe the chilling effects that fees awards have on people who are indigent and seek to litigate meritorious claims, and the possibility of retaliation that is introduced when the institutions that impose substandard conditions on incarcerated people use litigation costs as a way to discourage the exercise of incarcerated people’s constitutional right to petition the courts.