Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Weldon Clark Dixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

472 F.2d 598

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-01-23
Topic
antitrust

How later courts describe this case

  • "The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts."

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Weldon Clark Dixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
15 opinions
DIXON v. BETO,472 F.2d 598(5th Cir. 1973)
WELDON CLARK DIXON, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-2732.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 23, 1973.
Page 599
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.

Weldon Clark Dixon, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is the second appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas where the district court ordered the state court to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas matter involving a state prisoner. In Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972,469 F.2d 1076[dated November 27, 1972], we held that the district court exceeded its authority in so doing. We make the same holding here. Cf. also Clark v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972,465 F.2d 888.

[2] The exhaustion of state remedies doctrine, Ex Parte Royall,117 U.S. 241,6 S.Ct. 734,29 L.Ed. 868(1886); Fay v. Noia,372 U.S. 391,83 S.Ct. 822,9 L.Ed.2d 837(1963), is based on principles of comity to afford the state courts the first opportunity to pass on the claims of state prisoners that they were deprived of federal constitutional rights in connection with their restraint. Once state remedies are exhausted, it is the duty of the federal courts to pass on such claims. The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.

[3] Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.Page 622
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir., see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409. ↩