JAMES E. BILTON, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
DR. GEORGE J. BETO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Summary dismissal of a civil rights suit alleging a risk of serious bodily injury or death is improper if the plaintiff is not afforded an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
A Texas prisoner sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, alleging forced strenuous labor and denial of medical treatment for heart disease. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prisoner Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gamble v. Estelle, 516 F.2d 937 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Coy Ray Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 461 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1972)
- W. T v. State OF Ala., 466 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Flint v. Louie L. Wainwright, 433 F.2d 961 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Bowman v. Hale, 464 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1972)