UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. JAMES "DOC" BAILEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
REUBIN O'D. ASKEW AND LOUIE WAINWRIGHT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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.
State officials acting within their judicial roles or carrying out court orders are immune from § 1983 damages actions.
A state prisoner filed a § 1983 complaint alleging his sentence was improper under Williams v. Illinois. He sought damages from state officials for hi…
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 Williams V. Illinois cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from an order of the district court dismissing the civil rights complaint of a Florida state prisoner. We affirm.
Following his conviction upon trial by jury in state court on a three count indictment charging conspiracy, and sale and possession of marijuana, appellant was sentenced to 15 months on count one; to a consecutive term of five years on count two; and to a fine of five thousand dollars and concurrent term of five years on count three, unless the fine was not paid, in which case he was to serve a consecutive sentence of two and one-half years. Sentence was passed on April 21, 1970, but made to commence on May 20, 1969.
In his civil rights complaint filed below pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellant contended that the sentence under count three was improper under Williams v. Illinois, 1970, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586. Therefore, he claimed, the Governor of Florida and the Director of the Division of Corrections are confining him illegally and are liable to him in damages for each day he is confined on the illegal sentence. The district court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action.
The appellees are holding appellant pursuant to a court order of commitment. As the district court held, the court issuing the order of commitment is not subject to a § 1983 damages action for acts committed within its judicial role. Pierson v. Ray, 1962, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288; McAlester v. Brown, 5th Cir. 1972, 469 F. 2d 1280; Collins v. Moore, 5th Cir. 1971, 441 F. 2d 550. Thus it follows that it would be improper if those who are obliged'to carry out those orders of commitment would be subject to such an action. Furthermore, a jailer cannot be held liable for an error in an order of commitment which is patently proper. Whirl v. Kern, 5th Cir. 1969, 407 F. 2d 781, cert, denied 396 U.S. 901, 90 S.Ct. 210, 24 L.Ed.2d 177.
An error in appellant’s sentence should be corrected by habeas corpus proceedings in the state courts. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 1973, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439; Pierson v. Ray, 1962, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288. Appellant has by way of an available remedy a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., whereby he may obtain a review of his pre-Williams sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in that case. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryan v. Jones, 530 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
Card v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Fla., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2001)…ficial policymaker was responsible for the prolonged detention, and specifically distinguished the situation in which a prisoner is held pursuant to a judicial commitment order. See id. at 1561 (citing United States ex rel. Bailey v. Askew, 486 F.2d 134, 135 (5th Cir.1973) (“[A] jailer cannot be held liable for an error in an order of commitment which is patently proper.”); Tucker v. City of Montgomery Bd. of Comm’rs, 410 F.Supp. 494, 511 (M.D.Ala.1976) (involving a city jail warden who “acce…
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Pierson v. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 (U.S. 1967)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973)
- Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970)
- Whirl v. C. V. (Buster) Kern & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 396 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1969)
- Fowler v. City of Charlottesville, 396 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1969)
- James Oliver McALESTER et ux. v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Collins v. Judge Virlyn B. Moore, 441 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1971)