Ridley v. McCall, 73-2923.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-2923.,73-2923. |
| Citation | 496 F.2d 213 |
| Parties | Joseph RIDLEY and Woody Jenkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Cecil McCALL, Chairman, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., W. Lyman Dillon, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney W. Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen Parker, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This is a § 1983 suit attacking on a broad front the practices of the Georgia Parole Board. The District Court dismissed the complaint without issuing a show cause order requiring a factual response by the State or holding any evidentiary hearing. The District Court was of the view that this result was compelled by this Court's en banc decision in Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 278. Subsequently the judgment of this Court was vacated and remanded for determination of whether the case was moot, Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 1973, 414 U.S. 809, 94 S.Ct. 79, 38 L.Ed.2d 44, and thereafter this Court by order vacated the judgment of the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Consequently, Scarpa has no precedential value.
In view of this we think the interest of orderly administration calls for remand to the District Court for reconsideration. Since these sometime awesome constitutional principles ought not to be explored in a non-factual setting, the Court should take appropriate steps to assure development of the actual facts, not just the pleaded contention of the parties.
Vacated and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz v. Skelton
...decline to affirm the dismissal of this suit under a theory of res judicata.2 Cook v. Whiteside, 5 Cir.1974, 505 F.2d 32; Ridley v. McCall, 5 Cir.1974, 496 F.2d 213.3 Cf. Williams v. McCall, 5 Cir.1976, 531 F.2d 1247. That opinion vacated and remanded for further proceedings the district co......
-
U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Social Sec. Admin., Baltimore, Md. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
...Cir.1991) (vacatur due to mootness on subsequent appeal does not destroy precedential weight of court's opinion) with Ridley v. McCall, 496 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir.1974) (vacatur destroys precedential value of court's opinion).3 Section 7106(b) provides in pertinent part:Nothing in this sect......
-
Gilbert v. Milliken & Co.
...decision in Peppertree was vacated by the Supreme Court on April 27, 1992, and, therefore, has no precedential value. Ridley v. McCall, 496 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir.1974). The opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in Seniors Civil Liberties Association v. Kemp, 965 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.1992), affirm......
-
Central Pines Land Co. v. U.S.
...362 (reaffirming principles of Leiter Minerals II in face of Government's argument that it had no precedential value); Ridley v. McCall, 496 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir. 1974) (stating that vacated opinions have no precedential value); Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1424 n.2 (9th Cir.......