CLARENCE WATSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LEROY STYNCHOMBE, SHERIFF, ET AL., ETC., 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.
The court held that the district court should reconsider the dismissal in light of precedent establishing property rights are within the scope of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
Plaintiff sued the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful withholding of personal property seized upon incarceration. The dist…
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Watson sued the Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for the alleged wrongful withholding of personal property taken from him upon his incarceration. He alleged jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The district court dismissed his petition on the ground that it was a verbatim copy of a previous petition which had been dismissed for failure to state a civil rights cause of action.1
We vacate and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972), which held that there is no distinction between personal liberties and property rights with respect to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). See Montana v. Harrelson, 469 F. 2d 1091 (5th Cir. 1972).
Vacated and remanded.
. This original dismissal was clearly for lack of § 1983 based jurisdiction and expressly preserved plaintiff’s right to litigate his property loss in state court. Defendants’ contention that it had res judicata effect is not well taken. Hughes v. United States, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 232, 18 L.Ed. 303 (1866) ; Tyler Gas Service Co. v. Federal Power Commission [101 U.S.App.D.C. 184], 247 F. 2d 590 (1957) ; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bonner v. Coughlin, 517 F.2d 1311 (7th Cir. 1975)
-
Cont'l Cas. Co. & Emp'rs Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 605 F.2d 1340 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Carter v. Estelle, 519 F.2d 1136 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1972)
- Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232 (U.S. 1866)
- Tyler GAS Serv. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 247 F.2d 590 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
- Montana v. Lan E. Harrelson, 469 F.2d 1091 (5th Cir. 1972)