I noticed at the outset that (1) it was an opinion from Judge Callahan, (2) joined by Judge VanDyke, (3) involving the rights of prisoners. So I felt fairly confident at the get go, even without more, about how the opinion would come out.
Then I read the first paragraph of the opinion, which was all about the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and its desire to curtail lawsuits filed by prisoners. That reaffirmed my keen sense of how this one would end up. One usually doesn't begin an opinion with glowing words for the PLRA if you're going to find in favor of the prisoner(s).
But then I get to the second and third paragraphs, which describe the facts. Three prisoners had filed a civil lawsuit together, but the district court refused to allow them to do so, finding that joinder of such lawsuits by prisoners was improper under Rule 20 given the "unique status" of prisoners. The third paragraph then says:
"We reverse. The PLRA does not prohibit prisoners from
proceeding together in lawsuits, and the district court’s
denial of joinder was not based on the record before it."
What?! A pro-prisoner rights case from this panel?!
Then I get to the very next paragraph of the opinion, which starts to recite the law. It begins with:
"The idea that all citizens should have access to the courts
no matter their ability to pay can be traced back to the Magna
Carta. See John MacArthur Maguire, Poverty and Civil
Litigation, 36 Harv. L. Rev. 361 (1923). England codified
this principle in the late 15th century, guaranteeing that “the
poor Persons of this Land” could bring suit for “the Redress
of Injuries and Wrongs to them” without paying court fees.
11 Hen 7 c.12 (1495)."
I started doubting that I had read the caption correctly. This is Judge Callahan speaking? It sounds like an opinion written by some mushy-headed liberal. Is she really waxing poetic about the Magna Carta, the need for even impoverished citizens to have access to courts, and the like? I felt like I was suddenly in Bizarro World, where everything was the opposite of normal. Had there been a serious transporter malfunction somewhere?
It takes me until at least halfway through the opinion until I start to realize what's going on. Yes, the Ninth Circuit is indeed reversing the refusal to allow the three prisoners to file a lawsuit together. But, at the same time, the panel is holding that if the three prisoners really want to file together, they have to each pay the full filing fee, as opposed to non-indigent prisoners, who only have to pay a single filing fee.
So poor people have to pay more than rich people.
Ah! Now I get it. Now I understand why the opinion has the judicial support that it does, as well as why Judge Graber partially dissents.
Now the world is the "normal" one I expect.
