United States v. Wood
Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 19237.,19237. |
Citation | 295 F.2d 772 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. John Q. WOOD et al., Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Burke Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Doar, First Asst. Atty., Civil Rights, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Edward L. Cates, Asst. Atty. Gen., Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., Dugas Shands, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from the denial of a temporary restraining order pending a hearing for a preliminary injunction.1 The Government seeks to restrain the defendants from prosecuting one John Hardy, a Negro, before a Justice of the Peace in Walthall County, Mississippi. The case was filed in the Southern District of Mississippi under the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1971, on the theory that the continued prosecution of John Hardy was designed to, and would, intimidate the qualified Negroes of Walthall County from attempting to register to vote.2 The defendants are John Q. Wood, Registrar of Walthall County; Edd Craft, Sheriff of Walthall County; Breed O. Mounger, City Attorney of Tylertown, county seat of Walthall; and Michael Carr, District Attorney of that judicial district of Mississippi. The suit was filed on September 20, 1961, just two days before the scheduled date of Hardy's trial, which was set for 9:00 a. m., September 22; service was made on the evening of September 20; the hearing on the temporary restraining order was set for September 21, when the Government submitted its case on affidavits. These affidavits were not disputed, the defendants claiming insufficient notice or time for obtaining counter-affidavits. At 5:00 p. m. on the 21st, the district court entered its decision denying the order. The district judge refused to sign a certificate under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) allowing the Government to seek appeal of an interlocutory order. On the evening of the 21st, an attorney for the Government, accompanied by a Mississippi Assistant Attorney General representing the defendants, flew to Montgomery, Alabama, to submit to Judge Rives a petition for stay of the state prosecution pending appeal of the district court's decision. There, decision on whether the stay should issue became unnecessary when the Mississippi Assistant Attorney General commendably agreed to continue the prosecution of Hardy pending disposition of the Government's appeal. Judge Rives then entered an order expediting the appeal and setting argument for 9:00 a. m., October 3, 1961. Over the Government's objection, Judge Rives further ordered that the defendants, because of the minimum of time allowed them before the hearing in the district court, would be permitted to obtain counter-affidavits, provided they served them on the Government by September 29, and that the Government could then obtain rebuttal affidavits up until the argument on October 3. He stated that any such affidavits would be considered by this Court if that proved legally permissible.3
The facts as stated in the complaint and affidavits of the Government are as follows:
There are at the present time some 2,490 Negroes of voting age in Walthall County, Mississippi, none of whom are registered to vote. There are some 4,530 white persons of voting age in Walthall County, a substantial majority of whom are registered. In July 1961, John Hardy a Negro citizen, resident of Nashville, Tennessee, having completed two years at the Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial State College, came to Mississippi as a member of the "Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee" for the purpose of encouraging Negroes to register and vote. This organization is currently sponsoring a voter registration project in Walthall, Amite, and Pike Counties, Mississippi. In early August, John Hardy and several other Negro students came to Walthall County to set up a voting registration school to teach the qualified local Negroes how to register and to encourage them to make application to the Voting Registrar. From August 18 to September 9, they conducted classes for several hours a day. In these classes, Hardy and his helpers would issue facsimiles of the necessary registration forms and a copy of the Constitution of Mississippi. Those attending the classes would practice filling out the forms, copying sections of the Mississippi Constitution, and explaining their meaning. Attendance varied from 25 to 50 each evening.
The first attempt of participants in the school to register took place on August 30, when Hardy accompanied five Negroes to the Registrar's office, where at least two completed the registration forms. Outside the Registrar's office, Hardy encountered the Sheriff of Walthall County, Edd Craft (a defendant), in the company of the editor of the Tylertown Times. The Sheriff asked Hardy a number of questions about the registration school and whether he had a driver's license. The Sheriff soon left, but the editor of the Tylertown Times interviewed Hardy more extensively for an article which appeared on the front page of the Tylertown Times the next day. On September 5, 1961, three more Negroes went to register; on September 6, one Negro; on September 7, two Negroes. The incident giving rise to this action took place on September 7, and since then no Negroes have attempted to apply for registration in Walthall County.
At the Tylertown jail, Hardy was interviewed twice during the day of the 7th — first, by the defendants Sheriff Edd Craft and City Attorney Breed Mounger, and later by the same two plus defendant Michael Carr, the local District Attorney for the State of Mississippi. That evening, because the feeling about the incident was evidently running high in the community, Hardy was transferred by the defendants to the jail in Magnolia, Mississippi. Hardy was released on bond the next morning and his trial for disturbing the peace was set for the 22nd of September.
Hardy claims in his affidavit that, about the time the formal charge was entered, the District Attorney took him into a room There are no allegations that Hardy was otherwise mistreated in any way during his confinement.
The appellees move this Court to dismiss the appeal, and, at the very outset, this Court is faced with the question of its jurisdiction....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Manning
...Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 1906, 203 U.S. 390, 27 S. Ct. 65, 51 L.Ed. 241 (anti-trust); United States v. Wood, 1961, 5 Cir., 295 F.2d 772, 777 (Civil Rights Act of 1957); Henderson v. Burd, 1943, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 515, 146 A.L.R. 714 (Emergency Price Control Act); F......
-
United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
...that we cannot reasonably impute such a purpose to Congress from the general language of § 2283 alone." As stated in United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d 772, 783 (5th Cir. 1961), cert. denied 369 U.S. 850, 82 S.Ct. 933, 8 L.Ed.2d 9 "Where the United States has instituted the suit we must assume......
-
Baines v. City of Danville
...Dwyer are quite distinguishable from this case to which the literal language of § 2283 is unquestionably applicable.12 In United States v. Wood, 5 Cir., 295 F.2d 772, the Court had before it a proceeding brought by the United States to enjoin the prosecution in a state court of Mississippi ......
-
United States v. Original Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Civ. A. No. 15793.
...which the existence and health of the National Government depend. No one has expressed this better than Judge Rives in United States v. Wood, 5 Cir. 1961, 295 F.2d 772, cert. denied 369 U.S. 850, 82 S.Ct. 933, 8 L.Ed.2d 9 (1962).29 In Wood the interference was in the form of groundless pros......
-
Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
...v. Farm Credit Servs., 520 U.S. 821 (1997); Leiter Minerals v. United States, 352 U.S. 220 (1957); see also United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1961) (United States could obtain injunction enjoining state criminal prosecution). 166. See NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138 (1971).......
-
Issues Relating To Parallel Litigation
...Minerals, Inc. v. United States, 352 U.S. 220 (1957); Ark. v. Farm Credit Servs., 520 U.S. 821 (1997); see also United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1961) (United States could obtain injunction enjoining state criminal prosecution). 133. See NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138 (19......
-
Gaining Appellate Review by "manufacturing" a Final Judgment Through Voluntary Dismissal of Peripheral Claims - Rebecca A. Cochran
...120. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 370 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1966), cert, denied, 386 U.S. 1035 (1967). 121. United States v. Wood, 295 F.2d 772 (5th Cir. 1961), cert, denied, 369 U.S. 850 (1962). 122. Eisen, 370 F.2d at 120-21. 123. Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co., 359 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1966)......