Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Clarence Watson v. Leroy Stynchombe, Sheriff, Etc.

504 F.2d 393

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-12-27
Topic
finance

PER CURIAM: Watson sued the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for the alleged wrongful withholding of personal property taken from him upon his incarceration. He alleged jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The district court dismissed his petition on the ground that it was a verbatim copy of a previous petition which had been dismissed for failure to state a civil rights cause of action. 1 We vacate and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972), which held that there is no distinction between personal liberties and *394 property rights with respect to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). See Montana v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Clarence Watson v. Leroy Stynchombe, Sheriff, Etc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
WATSON v. STYNCHOMBE,504 F.2d 393(5th Cir. 1974)
CLARENCE WATSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LEROY STYNCHOMBE, SHERIFF, ET AL.,
ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 74-2325.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 21, 1974.
Rehearing Denied December 27, 1974.
Clarence Watson, pro se.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Martin H. Peabody, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Watson sued the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, under42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for the alleged wrongful withholding of personal property taken from him upon his incarceration. He alleged jurisdiction by virtue of28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and1343. The district court dismissed his petition on the ground that it was a verbatim copy of a previous petition which had been dismissed for failure to state a civil rights cause of action.1

[2] We vacate and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.,405 U.S. 538,92 S.Ct. 1113,31 L.Ed.2d 424(1972), which held that there is no distinction between personal liberties andPage 394property rights with respect to jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).SeeMontana v. Harrelson,469 F.2d 1091(5th Cir. 1972).

[3] Vacated and remanded.
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. This original dismissal was clearly for lack of § 1983 based jurisdiction and expressly preserved plaintiff's right to litigate his property loss in state court. Defendants' contention that it had res judicata effect is not well taken. Hughes v. United States, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 232,18 L.Ed. 303(1866); Tyler Gas Service Co. v. Federal Power Commission [101 U.S.App.D.C. 184],247 F.2d 590(1957);seeFed.R.Civ.P.41(b). ↩