Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary

488 F.2d 977

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-01-28
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • affirming “for the reasons stated in the district court’s said opinion”
  • a prisoner is presumed to retain the domicile he had prior 13 “For Diversity purposes, citizenship means domicile.” Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir. 1974

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
POLAKOFF v. HENDERSON,488 F.2d 977(5th Cir. 1974)
SHELDON POLAKOFF AND GLORIA POLAKOFF, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. D.
HENDERSON, WARDEN, U.S. PENITENTIARY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 73-3427.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 28, 1974.
Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff, pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., William D. Mallard, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Richard C. Freeman, Judge.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of a damage suit, grounded on the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, filed by a federal prisoner and his wife.1The appellantsPage 978sued the warden of the institution where the husband is confined, complaining that the warden has denied marital visitations to the appellants. The district court stated reasons for its ruling in a comprehensive memorandum opinion, which is reported as Polakoff v. Henderson, N.D.Ga. 1973,370 F. Supp. 690. We affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the district court's said opinion.

[2] Affirmed.
  1. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court's local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969,412 F.2d 981. ↩