Ruiz v. Estelle, 76-1948

Decision Date07 April 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1948,76-1948
Citation550 F.2d 238
PartiesDavid R. RUIZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Bert W. Pluymen, Edward Idar, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., David M. Kendall, Jr., First Asst. Atty. Gen., Joe B. Dibrell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., Harry Walsh, Enforcement Div., Asst. Atty. Gen., Huntsville, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

William Bennett Turner, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

John C. Hoyle, J. Stanley Pottinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter W. Barnett, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Appellate Section, Washington, D. C., Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for the U. S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before TUTTLE, GOLDBERG and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The director of the Texas Department of Corrections appeals here from two parts of a twenty-part preliminary injunctive order issued by the district court on December 30, 1975. That order, which applies only to certain of the named plaintiffs in this state prisoners' civil rights class action, was issued as a result of allegations by these plaintiffs of violations of the provisions of two earlier protective orders issued by the district court. The order was issued after the conduct of an evidentiary hearing and is based upon facts established at that hearing. The Texas Department of Corrections does not dispute the facts as found by the district court. We find that those facts are supported by the record.

On appeal, the Texas Department of Corrections asks this Court to vacate paragraphs 17(e) and (f) and 19. These parts of the order apply to the appearance of counsel substitute at disciplinary hearings which involve these plaintiffs and to the provision for adequate food to prevent weight loss while these plaintiffs are in solitary confinement. Appellants contend that by this order the district court has arbitrarily and irrationally created a special class of privileged inmates.

A review of the record reveals that as a result of their instigation of and participation in this litigation, these named plaintiffs have indeed been treated as a special class of inmates by the officers and officials of the Texas Department of Corrections. The record discloses that in response to their participation in this litigation, these inmates have been subjected during its pendency to threats, intimidation, coercion, punishment, and discrimination, all in the face of protective orders to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Ruiz v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 12, 1980
    ...civil action instituted by Ruiz was consolidated with the suits of seven other TDC inmates2 into a single civil action, styled Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238. Counsel was appointed to represent the indigent plaintiffs in the litigation, and the United States was ordered to appear in the case......
  • Ruiz v. Estelle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 23, 1982
    ...and discrimination, all in the face of protective orders to the contrary by the district court." Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (Ruiz II ). 3. TDC's application for a writ of prohibition preventing the transfer of the final portion of the trial from Houston ......
  • Ruiz v. Estelle, H-78-987-CA.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 17, 1982
    ...inmates within the control of defendants, a circumstance which created tension throughout the trial. See Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (Ruiz II). Even investigation of the case under these conditions requires skills of broad compass. After initial investigation o......
  • TEXAS SUPPORTERS OF WORKERS, ETC. v. Strake
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • January 8, 1981
    ...Nor may a prisoner be punished or discriminated against because he has exercised his right of access to the courts. See Ruiz v. Estelle, 550 F.2d 238, 239 (5th Cir. 1977); Andrade v. Hauck, 452 F.2d 1071, 1072 (5th Cir. To the extent that these prisoners seek damages, a declaratory judgment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT