William Hope Davis v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10511
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00027-JEG
WILLIAM HOPE DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
PEGGY ANN COOPER, Assistant Warden, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 17, 2014)
Before MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MORENO,* District
Judge.
___________
*Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 13-10511 Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
We have had the benefit of oral argument, and have carefully considered the
briefs of the parties and relevant parts of the record. We are satisfied that the court
below erred in concluding that Davis lacked standing. Thus, a remand to the
district court is necessary, as indeed both parties agree.
At the time Davis filed suit, the defendant prison officials were refusing to
mail the documents Davis had deposited with the prison mail office for mailing his
notice of appeal to his state habeas trial court, his application for a certification of
probable cause to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and his service copies to
defendant’s counsel. The defendant prison officials’ refusal was based on the
prison’s limitation on inmate postage against which Davis’ suit brings an as
applied challenge as an unconstitutional denial of his right of access to the courts.
Thus, Davis has shown that the presentation of the claim he desires to bring to the
Supreme Court of Georgia “is currently being prevented” by the application of the
prison postage limitation rule which he challenges. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 350,
356, 116 S.Ct. 274, 2182 (1996). And the Supreme Court has held that “the
standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had
the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed.” Davis v. Federal
Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2769 (2008). Davis’ claim is a
Case: 13-10511 Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
habeas corpus claim, which is one that is protected by the right of access to the
courts. Defendant has not suggested that Davis’ claim is frivolous. Accordingly,
we conclude that Davis had standing at the time he filed suit.
The court below ruled only on the standing issue, and has expressed no
opinion with respect to mootness or the merits of Davis’ claim. Appropriate
procedure indicates that the court below should address these matters in the first
instance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.1
1 Appellant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Court Documents is GRANTED.
Case: 13-10511 Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --