Miller v. Jones, 75-3882
| Decision Date | 12 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-3882,75-3882 |
| Parties | Warren C. MILLER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee, v. Clarence JONES, Sheriff, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, John H. Hagler, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Tom S. McCorkle, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before TUTTLE, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Sheriff Clarence Jones appeals from the entry of a jury trial award of damages to Warren C. Miller, Jr., for wrongful imprisonment and for injuries sustained by Miller while held in Sheriff Jones' custody pursuant to an arrest warrant which, unknown to the Sheriff, had been withdrawn prior to Miller's arrest and incarceration. Jurisdiction of the count asserting wrongful arrest was laid under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Jurisdiction of the state law tort action for injuries sustained during imprisonment was asserted to be pendent.
The federal law claim was tried and instructed under the legal theories enunciated in this court's decision in Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1969). The court charged the jury that in the absence of actual notice of the warrant's withdrawal the Sheriff could be held liable based upon constructive notice of the judicial invalidation of the warrant for Miller's arrest but not until he had had a reasonable time to investigate into his legal authority to imprison plaintiff. One of the special issues the court addressed to the jury inquired whether Sheriff Jones failed to make a reasonable and timely investigation into the legal authority to imprison Miller after February 7, 1974, the date on which charges against Miller were dismissed. The jury found he did and assessed damages for this neglect.
The Sheriff's principal assertions on this appeal were that his actions were taken pursuant to a facially valid warrant and that his duty to commence a reasonable and timely investigation into the warrant's continuing force did not begin until February 9, 1974, the date upon which his deputies arrested and incarcerated Miller.
The undisputed facts disclosed that a charge of possession of marijuana had been lodged against Miller in early 1973. After a series of continuances, his appearance bond was ordered forfeited and a warrant issued for Miller's arrest. However, on December 27, 1973, the warrant was recalled by the clerk of the court and notice of that recall was dispatched to the Sheriff's Department. On Thursday, February 7, 1974, the charges against Miller were dismissed and again notice was dispatched to the Sheriff's Department.
Sheriff Jones denied receipt of either notice from the court due to a faulty pneumatic tube system between the court clerk and his office. He contends that he acted in good faith on the belief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Diamond
...opinion, said that the majority opinion cast Whirl "adrift to become a derelict in the law", 530 F.2d 1219. See, also, Miller v. Jones, 5 Cir., 1976, 534 F.2d 1178. Secondly, simple negligence is not enough to pierce official immunity in a § 1983 case, Bogard v. Cook, The Class Action After......
-
Pritz v. Hackett
...the verification procedure used to identify the plaintiffs.10 See Bryan v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1210, 1214 (5th Cir. 1976); Miller v. Jones, 534 F.2d 1178, 1179 (5th Cir. 1976); Stephenson v. Gaskins, 539 F.2d 1066, 1067-1068 (5th Cir. Retelle The disposition of the false imprisonment claim agai......
-
Salazar v. Collins
...Id. at 519 (quoting Annotation, Liability for Death of or Injury to Prisoner, 46 A.L.R. 94, 114 (1927)); accord Miller v. Jones, 534 F.2d 1178, 1180 (5th Cir.1976). Browning appears directly on point. Nevertheless, because there is no more contemporary Texas authority on this issue, we will......
-
Wackenhut Corrections Corp. v. De La Rosa
...such an injury will be inflicted or had "good reason to anticipate danger thereof." Browning, 152 S.W.2d at 519; see also Miller v. Jones, 534 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1976). Wackenhut is switching positions again—the instruction that Wackenhut submitted, which it argues to this Court was errone......