Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
James E. Bilton, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department Ofcorrections, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 470 F.2d 988
Dec. 27, 1972
Charles T. Newton, Jr., Houston, Tex. (Court Appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lang A. Baker, Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before GODBOLD, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983, appellant, a Texas prisoner, alleged that Texas prison officials forced him to perform strenuous labor and refused to furnish medical treatment for his heart disease. On March 30, 1972, the court below dismissed the suit for failure to allege the presence of "exceptional circumstances" warranting interference in prison administration, citing, inter alia, Flint v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 961.
Nineteen days after this order of dismissal was entered, we announced our decision in Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1972, 460 F.2d 765, in which we held that summary dismissal of a civil rights suit alleging a "grave and immediate threat to health or physical well being" was improper. 460 F.2d at 768.
It is understandable that the district judge, reading Flint, supra, without the benefit of our subsequent opinion in Campbell, supra, would have concluded that summary dismissal was proper in this case. Moreover, it might well be argued that appellant did not allege as extreme a case as was present in Campbell. See McCombs, The Fundamentals of Internal Medicine 313-315 (1965). Nevertheless, since appellant did allege that appellees' conduct subjected him to the risk of "serious bodily injury and possible death," Complaint p. 4, he should have been afforded the opportunity to substantiate his claim. Campbell, supra; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 1080. See also Bowman v. Hale, 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 1032; Hutchens v. Alabama, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 507.
Vacated and remanded.