Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Payne v. District of Columbia

Payne v. D.C., 253 F.2d 867 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1958)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1958-03-27
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant sued for damages and for injunctive and declarative relief to require appellees to permit conjugal visits to her husband and private accommodations during the time he is lawfully committed to the District of Columbia Jail under a conviction for housebreaking. His incarceration is not challenged. She claims she has been denied rights without due process as to her. The District Court dismissed the complaint of appellant for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Payne v. District of Columbia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
PAYNE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,253 F.2d 867(D.C. Cir. 1958)
Minnie Mae PAYNE, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, a body corporate, et
al., Appellees.
No. 13944.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued February 19, 1958.
Decided March 27, 1958.
Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied April 23, 1958.
Page 868
Mr. Carroll F. Tyler, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. John A. Earnest, Asst. Corp. Counsel, also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before PRETTYMAN and BURGER, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, a Senior Judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appealsfn*.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant sued for damages and for injunctive and declarative relief to require appellees to permit conjugal visits to her husband and private accommodations during the time he is lawfully committed to the District of Columbia Jail under a conviction for housebreaking. His incarceration is not challenged. She claims she has been denied rights without due process as to her.

The District Court dismissed the complaint of appellant for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

We find no error in the dismissal and the judgment of the District Court is therefore

Affirmed.
  1. Sitting by designation pursuant to the provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28 U.S.Code. ↩