Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Wainwright

Williams v. Wainwright, 461 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-06-13
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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. *1081We 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. Wainwright. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
18 opinions
WILLIAMS v. WAINWRIGHT,461 F.2d 1080(5th Cir. 1972)
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.
Nos. 27556, 27954, 28058 and 28479.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 1972.
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and MORGAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.Page 1081

[2] 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 inCampbellwe 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 789,791-792and cases cited therein.

[3] Vacated and remanded.Page 1092
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431, F.2d 409, Part I. ↩