Brown v. Rayfield

• Decision Date: 01 July 1963
• Docket Number: No. 20625.,20625.
• Citation: 320 F.2d 96
• Parties: Application of James BROWN, Appellant, v. W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of Jackson, Mississippi, Appellee. Application of Lucian RICHARDS, Appellant, v. W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of Jackson, Mississippi, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

320 F.2d 96 (1963)

Application of James BROWN, Appellant, v. W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of Jackson, Mississippi, Appellee.

Application of Lucian RICHARDS, Appellant, v. W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of Jackson, Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 20625.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 1, 1963.

Carsie A. Hall, Jackson, Miss., Robert L. Carter, Barbara A. Morris, Derrick A. Bell, New York City, Jack H. Young, Jackson, Miss., for appellants.

Robert G. Nichols, Jr., E. W. Stennett, Thomas H. Watkins, J. A. Travis, Jr., Jackson, Miss., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and RIVES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Chief Judge.

These are two appeals, consolidated for the purpose of the hearing in this Court, from a denial by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi of the applications by the two appellants for writs of habeas corpus seeking their release from the municipal jail of the city of Jackson, Mississippi. Appellants contend that they were arrested and imprisoned illegally by the respondent, having been charged with a violation of a city ordinance (No. 594) of the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which prohibits parading without a permit. They allege that they, together with four other individuals, were arrested while walking in tandem on Capitol Street in Jackson, Mississippi, in an orderly fashion carrying a replica of the flag of the United States of America and displaying a sign protesting racial segregation in the city of Jackson, Mississippi. They allege that the arrest and confinement under such circumstances violate their rights and privileges secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Appellants concede that they have not exhausted their State remedies, either by appeal or by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts of the state of Mississippi. They contend that they fall within the exception of Section 2254, 28 U.S.C.A.,¹ since they contend circumstances exist "rendering such process ineffective to protect" their rights. These circumstances are described by petitioners in the following language:

"Petitioner avers that all public officials of the State of Mississippi are committed to a policy of segregation by state law as is shown by laws enacted by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi in 1956 (Sections 4065.3, 2046.5(1), 2056(7), 2087.7 and 2087.5 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 and the amendments thereto); That members of the various state Courts, all of whom are elected, give tacit if not open approval and support to the segregation statutes in their election campaigns and that this segregation policy is reflected in the opinions and decisions of the State Courts; And that, therefore, any attempt to make use of the State remedies for relief necessarily would be futile and could only serve to delay, if not negate, the relief to which petitioner is entitled. Your petitioner is advised by his counsel that similar cases resulting from the arrest, confinement and conviction of so called `Freedom Riders\' in June, 1961, have not yet been disposed of by the Supreme Court of Mississippi as of this date. To require petitioner to seek redress in the state courts prior to this Court\'s assuming jurisdiction of this cause is to deny petitioner the relief afforded by a habeas corpus proceedings, and to relegate him to process which is ineffective to protect his rights. The arrest and confinement of petitioner is patently unconstitutional; continuance of that confinement is in arrogant disregard of the laws of the United States."

Respondent attacks the application in the court below and here as well on the ground that the statute clearly applies to such cases as are here present and that this Court cannot assume the correctness of the statement referred to to the effect that the courts of the state of Mississippi will not carry out their duty with respect to granting appellants their full constitutional rights. The State has also moved to dismiss these appeals on the ground that appellants have now obtained their release from jail by posting bond.

We dealt with just such a case as that presented here by an unpublished opinion in In re Application of Elizabeth P. Wykoff, 6 Race Relations Law Reporter, 793. There, the applicant sought from this Court permission to proceed on the original record from the trial court and an acceleration of her appeal for an immediate hearing in an effort to have a reversal of the denial by the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi of its denial of her petition for habeas corpus, 196 F.Supp. 515. She there asserted that because of the short term of her detention and "the clear violation by respondent of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the requirement that she must first exhaust her state remedies would, in effect, deny...