Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

M. G. Thevis, T/a Paris Book Stall v. George G. Seibels, Jr., in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Birmingham

464 F.2d 613

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-07-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The order of the district court dismissing Thevis’ complaint is affirmed. Federal declaratory or injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions, whether pending or threatened, is not justified in the absence of proof of bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Younger v. Harris, 1971, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669; Samuels v. Mackell, 1971, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688; Boyle v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed M. G. Thevis, T/a Paris Book Stall v. George G. Seibels, Jr., in His Capacity as Mayor of the City of Birmingham. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
THEVIS v. SEIBELS,464 F.2d 613(5th Cir. 1972)
M. G. THEVIS, T/A PARIS BOOK STALL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GEORGE G.
SEIBELS, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-1860.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 24, 1972.
Robert Eugene Smith, Towson, Md., D. Freeman Hutton, Atlanta, Ga., Ferris S. Ritchey, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

J. M. Breckenridge, City Atty., Herbert Jenkins, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The order of the district court dismissing Thevis' complaint is affirmed. Federal declaratory or injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions, whether pending or threatened, is not justified in the absence of proof of bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Younger v. Harris, 1971,401 U.S. 37,91 S.Ct. 746,27 L.Ed.2d 669; Samuels v. Mackell, 1971,401 U.S. 66,91 S.Ct. 764,27 L.Ed.2d 688; Boyle v. Landry, 1971,401 U.S. 77,91 S.Ct. 758,27 L.Ed.2d 696; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 1965,380 U.S. 479,85 S.Ct. 1116,14 L.Ed.2d 22; Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 1943,319 U.S. 157,63 S.Ct. 877,87 L.Ed. 1324; Fenner v. Boykin, 1926,271 U.S. 240,46 S.Ct. 492,70 L.Ed. 927; Becker v.Page 614Thompson, 5 Cir. 1972,463 F.2d 1338, petition for rehearing en banc denied; Cooley v. Endictor, 5 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 513; Thevis v. Moore, 5 Cir. 1971,440 F.2d 1350.

[2] Affirmed.Page 615
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩