Williams v. Wainwright, 27556
| Decision Date | 13 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | 27954,No. 27556,28058 and 28479 Summary Calendar.,27556 |
| Citation | 461 F.2d 1080 |
| Parties | Johnnie WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee. Robert WALDEN, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee. Willie RAINGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee. Lawrence Doyle CONKLIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Johnnie Williams, Jr., pro se.
Robert Walden, pro se.
Willie Rainge, pro se.
Lawrence D. Conklin, pro se.
Earl Faircloth, Robert L. Shevin, Attys. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Michael L. Minerva, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and MORGAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated appeal four inmates of the Florida State Prison at Raiford seek relief against alleged deprivations of constitutional rights resulting from their confinement in that institution. The District Court dismissed each of the complaints without a hearing or any other sort of factual investigation on the theory that the practices in question were within the scope of the broad official discretion permitted in connection with the operation and administration of State prison systems.
We vacate and remand for further development of the facts. Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652; Cruz v. Beto, 1972, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263; Gilmore v. Lynch, N.D.Cal., 1970, 319 F.Supp. 105, affirmed sub nom. Younger v. Gilmore, 1971, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142; Novak v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 661; Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 765. As in Campbell we intimate nothing regarding the merit or lack of merit of any of the allegations raised in the complaints, nor do we attempt to prescribe the form which the necessary factual inquiry should take. Whether these claims should be graced with a fullfledged evidentiary hearing or disposed of by utilization of the wide variety of available discovery techniques is a matter properly to be decided by the District Judge. As in other civil cases the usual standards prevail. See Tyler v. Peel Corp., 5 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 789, 791-792 and cases cited therein.
Vacated and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dreyer v. Jalet
...purpose of presenting their complaints." Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263, 267 (1972). See Williams v. Wainwright, 461 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1972); Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. E. THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 1. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 These consolidated law......
-
Sands v. Wainwright
...718 (1969); Courtney v. Bishop, 409 F.2d 1185 (8th Cir. 1969); Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1968); cf. Williams v. Wainwright, 461 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1972). Thus, in this case this Court has sought with considerable care and thoughtfulness to determine the limits of constituti......
-
Cruz v. Hauck
...scrutinize the effect of the restrictions. Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 461 F. 2d 1080; Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 765; Neal v. Georgia, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 446 1972. It is clear that ready access ......
-
Holland v. Connors, 73-3352. Summary Calendar.
...(5th Cir. 1972); Henry v. Van Cleve, 469 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1972); Hutchens v. Alabama, 466 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1972); Williams v. Wainwright, 461 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1972). Vacated and * Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. Y. et al., 5th Cir. 1970,......