EN BANC ORDER
WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE
before the Court, en banc, comes the Application for Leave to
Proceed in the Trial Court and the Motion to Amend
Post-Conviction Relief filed pro se by Randy Dale Jackson.
Jackson's conviction of murder and sentence of life
imprisonment were affirmed by this Court on May 3, 2001, and
the mandate issued on May 24, 2001. Jackson v.
State, 784 So.2d 180 (Miss. 2001). This is Jackson's
fourth application for leave to file a motion for
post-conviction relief. We find that the application for
leave is barred by time and as a successive application, and
it does not meet any of the exception to those bars. Miss.
Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(2), 99-39-27(9) (Rev. 2015).
Not withstanding the bars, we find the claims are without
merit. Accordingly, the application for leave should be
the instant filing is also frivolous. Jackson is hereby
warned that future filings deemed frivolous may result not
only in additional monetary sanctions, but also restrictions
on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
(or pleadings in that nature) in forma
pauperis. See En Banc Order, Fairley v.
State, 2014-M-01185 (Miss. May 3, 2018) (citing Order,
Bownes v. State, 2014-M-00478 (Miss. Sept. 20,
THEREFORE ORDERED that the application for post-conviction
collateral relief filed by Randy Dale Jackson is dismissed as
WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM,
CHAMBERLIN, AND ISHEE, JJ.
J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
Although Randy Jackson's application for post-conviction
relief does not merit relief, I disagree with the Court's
finding that the application is frivolous and with the
warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for
post-conviction collateral relief in forma
This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean
one filed in which the movant has "no hope of
success." Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 751
(Miss. 1995). However, "though a case may be weak or
'light-headed,' that is not sufficient to label it
frivolous." Calhoun v. State, 849 So.2d 892,
897 (Miss. 2003). Jackson made reasonable arguments regarding
violations of his fundamental rights. As such, I disagree
with the Court's determination that Jackson's
application is frivolous.
Additionally, I disagree with this Court's warning that
future filings may result in monetary sanctions or
restrictions on filling applications for post-conviction
collateral relief in forma pauperis. The imposition
of monetary sanctions upon a criminal defendant proceeding
in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude
that defendant from his lawful right to appeal. Black's
Law Dictionary defines sanction as "[a] provision that
gives force to a legal imperative by either rewarding
obedience or punishing disobedience."
Sanction, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)
(emphasis added). Instead of punishing the defendant for
filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny
or dismiss motions which lack merit. As Justice Brennan
The Court's order purports to be motivated by this
litigant's disproportionate consumption of the
Court's time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly
as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to
identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the
amount of time and resources required to deal properly with
McDonald's petitions could be so great as to justify the
step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in
the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr.
McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to
process his petitions for the next several years at least. I
continue to find puzzling the Court's fervor in ensuring
that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so
doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186-87, 109 S.Ct. 993,
997, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (per
The same logic applies to the restriction on filing
subsequent applications for post- conviction relief. To cut
off an indigent defendant's right to proceed in forma
pauperis is to cut off his access to the courts. This,
in itself, violates a defendant's constitutional rights,
for Among the rights recognized by the Court as being
fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial
discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to
communicate with free persons, to have due process in
disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment. As a result of the recognition of these
and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is
necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became
a fundamental right. Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison
Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You're Out
ofCourt-It May Be Effective, but Is It
Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474-75 (1997).
This Court must not discourage convicted defendants ...