Summary
The Supreme Court of Alabama denied William Keith Robey’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking in forma pauperis status to file a Rule 32 postconviction petition without prepaying the filing fee. The per curiam disposition was issued without an opinion, with several justices concurring, two dissenting, and one recusing. Chief Justice Moore’s dissent argued that the inmate’s indigency should be assessed primarily based on his account balance at filing and discussed alternative methods for recovering filing fees and deterring meritless petitions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Robey was entitled to mandamus relief compelling the Jefferson Circuit Court to grant in forma pauperis status for his Rule 32 petition.
- Whether indigency for purposes of waiving the Rule 32 filing fee should be determined by the inmate's present account balance and related account history or by whether the inmate could have saved sufficient funds from prior deposits.
- Whether denying an indigent prisoner the ability to file a postconviction petition without prepayment of the filing fee raises access-to-courts or equal-protection concerns.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court of Alabama denied Robey's petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The dissent concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals' 'could-have-saved' rule was inconsistent with Alabama precedent requiring substantial consideration of the inmate's financial position when the Rule 32 petition was filed, including the account balance at filing and relevant prior balances.
- The dissent would have ordered the trial court to reconsider Robey's in forma pauperis application under the standards stated in Ex parte Hurth, Ex parte Beavers, and Ex parte Dozier and in light of the available after-the-fact fee-recovery mechanisms.
Key quotations
“"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that requires the showing of: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty on the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court."” (160 So. 3d at 4-5)
“"To impose any financial consideration between an indigent prisoner and the exercise of his right to sue for his liberty is to deny that prisoner equal protection of the laws."” (160 So. 3d at 14-15)
“Thus, Robey is quite correct in arguing that the "could-have-saved" rule adopted in 2011 in Wyre directly conflicts with earlier cases decided both by this Court and by the Court of Criminal Appeals.” (160 So. 3d at 16-17)
Factual background
On June 13, 2013, Robey filed a fourth Rule 32 petition accompanied by an in forma pauperis application. His inmate-account statement showed $415 in total deposits over the preceding twelve months, an average of $34.58 per month, and approximately $27.45 in the account when he filed. The Jefferson Circuit Court denied in forma pauperis status, apparently applying a rule that an inmate who could have saved enough money to pay the filing fee is not indigent.
Procedural history
Robey filed a fourth Rule 32 petition and an in forma pauperis application in the Jefferson Circuit Court. The circuit court summarily denied the application based on deposits in Robey's inmate account, and the Court of Criminal Appeals denied mandamus relief. Robey then sought mandamus in the Supreme Court of Alabama, which denied the petition without an opinion.