Adams v. Ellis, 13868.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13868.,13868. |
| Citation | 197 F.2d 483 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. ELLIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Homer B. Adams, in pro per.
Willis E. Gresham, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, for appellee.
Before HOLMES, RUSSELL and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
Originally brought to secure damages, injunction, and the writ of habeas corpus, the petition of the appellant was dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction. Appellant, while a prisoner in the Texas State Penitentiary, where he was held by virtue of State process, filed the petition captioned "Civil Action for Damages and Injunction under Civil Rights Laws of the United States and Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Jurisdiction was claimed "under Section 241, Section 1702, Section 1708 (all) of Title 18 of the United States Code, as amended; under Section 711 of United States Revised Statutes; under Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States; under the 4th * * * 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States" to restrain continuing violations of said laws, to secure plaintiff's release, and to secure redress of damages suffered as a "result of defendant's violations of his rights under the above named laws." It will be observed that the statutes cited are criminal laws, but it is evident that, at least so far as the claim for damages is concerned, the petitioner, in effect, seeks to assert jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 1343, Title 28, United States Code, to enforce a claim under the provisions of Section 43 of Title 8, United States Code. The petitioner has been released from custody and thus the claim for an injunction and the writ of habeas corpus have been removed from the case. Only the claim for damages remains.
The complaint names O. B. Ellis, General Manager of the Texas Prison System, Richard C. Jones, Assistant General Manager, and H. E. Moore, Warden of the Huntsville Unit of such system, as defendants; and, as co-conspirators, but expressly not as defendants, nine officials and members of the Texas Prison Board, three members and one former member of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, two doctors and eight officials and employees at the Huntsville Prison. By way of background recital, the complaint sets forth the cultured family background of petitioner, his graduation from Texas Christian University, his attendance at Texas University and the Law School at St. Mary's University, his subsequent career as athletic coach and teacher, the details of how he was wrongfully prosecuted, driven from business as a life insurance agent, and, finally, wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. Proceeding to the present case and the alleged conspirators, the petition alleges at great length and in specific detail their duties under the laws of Texas and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto as to the care, rehabilitation, classification, etc., of prisoners and the grant of paroles and pardons. Proceeding then to the only feature of the case which can be even remotely considered as bearing upon, or approaching, a claim of deprivation of civil rights, the complaint, after asserting the lack of power of any State officer to suspend or interfere with the postal laws of the United States, or to censor or confiscate any mail matter, or to try or punish any person for the alleged violation of such laws, alleges that even a prisoner has a right to indictment by a grand jury and to a speedy public trial by a jury. Furthermore, that where such official, or officials, assume to try and punish, and specifically where the punishment results in solitary confinement and violation of the classification laws of Texas, or the delay or denial of pardon or parole, there ensues the deprivation of civil rights. Nevertheless, it is alleged, the defendants have conspired to, and have, injured and oppressed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmigiano v. Travisono
...of the prisoners." 30 Officials censoring incoming and outgoing mail: Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965); Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952); Ortega v. Ragen, 216 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1954) cert. denied, 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268 (1955); Fulwood v. Clemmer, ......
-
Sciolino v. Marine Midland Bank-Western
...and 17091 —is not the type of action envisioned under this section. Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 492 F.2d 413 (3rd Cir. 1974), Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952), and Paton v. La Prade, 382 F.Supp. 1118 (D.N.J.1974), vacated and remanded, 524 F.2d 862 (3rd Cir. 1975), are not to the Whe......
-
Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)
...and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined. ’ Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir.1952, 197 F.2d 483, 485.” Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9, 12 (5th Cir.1969) (emphasis added). See note 11, infra.10 At one juncture, the Looney court......
-
Ferguson, In re
...on federal constitutional grounds. United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR, supra, 7 Cir., 209 F.2d 105, 107; Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 483, 485. But in the instant circumstances, the refusal to allow these petitioners to pursue their requested religious activities does no......
-
RLUIPA at four: evaluating the success and constitutionality of RLUIPA'S prisoner provisions.
...the Belly of the Whale, supra note 10, at 1893 (quoting MICHAEL B. MUSHLIN, RIGHTS OF PRISONERS 255 (2d ed. 1993). (12.) Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1952). See also Kelly v. Dowd, 140 F.2d 81, 83 (7th Cir. 1944) (holding that because prisoner was incarcerated in a state pris......
-
Wright v. McMann and Cruel and Unusual Punishment
...For this same attitude,as reflected in the federal courts, see e.g. Henson v. Welch, 199 F. 2d 367 (4th Cir. 1952); Adams v. Ellis, 197 F. 2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952); Pigg v. Patterson,370 F. 2d 101 (10th Cir. 1966). See generally on this problem: Note: "Beyondthe Ken of the Courts: A Critique ......
-
Censorship of Mail: the Prisoner's Right To Communicate By Mail With the Outside World
...But 37 here, too, the restrictions exist so that the ability to write to such personsis a privilege and not a right. See, Adams v. Ellis, 197 F. 2d 483 (5thCir. In carving out the various exceptions for prisoners’ written com- munications concerning the legality of their treatment or detent......