CHARLES E. HARDIN ET AL., PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTS,
v.
DOLPH BRISCOE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, 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 trial judge abused discretion by dismissing the action for failure to comply with an order when the plaintiff presented a substantial constitutional claim.
A state prisoner filed a class action challenging the discriminatory application of Texas Penal Code enhancement provisions. The trial court dismissed…
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 Judicial Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM;
This appeal questions the extent of a Trial Judge’s discretionary latitude to dismiss an action under F.R.Civ.P. 41 for plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of the Court.
Hardin, a state prisoner, brought this class action in July 1973 attacking the enhancement provisions of the Texas Penal Code 1 as violative of equal protection. He asserted that these provisions have been applied with impermissible discrimination since they are most frequently invoked only when a criminal defendant insists on his right to trial by jury and not to those who “trade out” by a plea of guilty. Although the merits of this claim are not now before us and we intimate no judgment concerning them, we feel that Hardin has presented a substantial question that calls for a judicial determination. See Oyler v. Boles, 1962, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446; United States v. Jackson, 1968, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138.
But more significantly, the dismissal was not for failure to state a claim under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rather, the District Judge, informed by the magistrate that Hardin had brought a substantially similar suit the preceding year, ordered Hardin to file within 20 days a sworn statement listing all cases filed by him having the same theory as their basis for relief. Eight days later plaintiff replied with an unsworn statement. He explained that due to the circumstances of his incarceration he was unable to have the document notarized. On September 4, the case was dismissed.
Recognizing the inherent power of the District Court to make orders and to enforce them through the sword of dismissal, Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 1962, 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734; Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co., 5 Cir., 389 F. 2d 885, cert. denied, 1968, 392 U.S. 928, 88 S.Ct. 2287, 20 L.Ed.2d 1387, we have repeatedly held that such dismissal must be within the sound discretion of the Court. Pond v. Braniff, 5 Cir., 1972, 453 F. 2d 347; Brown v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F. 2d 1214; Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co., supra. Here, that discretion has been abused, there being at that stage no reason why the pendency of one or more similar cases' in other courts had any relation to the right to a determination of the merits of the constitutional claim.
The order of dismissal is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate it.
Reversed and remanded.
. Vernon’s Tex.Pen.Code Ann. arts. 62, 63.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montgomery v. Estelle, 547 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962)
- United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1968)
- Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1962)
- Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., Inc., 389 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Pond v. Braniff Airways, 453 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Colorado v. Franc, 392 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1968)
- Am. Acceptance Corp. v. Schoenthaler, 392 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1968)
- Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1970)