ROBERT CHARLES FORD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD BYRD, CHIEF OF POLICE, ET AL., 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 claims for relief from confinement must proceed by habeas corpus, and prosecuting attorneys and state judges are immune from § 1983 suits.
A Texas state prisoner filed a § 1983 suit challenging a car search and seeking relief from confinement. The district court dismissed the suit without…
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 Prosecutorial Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a § 1983 suit by a Texas state prisoner. The District Court dismissed it without prejudice to the filing of a habeas corpus petition.
Insofar as plaintiff seeks relief from confinement he must proceed by habeas corpus. The prosecuting attorney1 and the state trial judge who sentenced plaintiff are immune from § 1983 suits.
Plaintiff questions the validity of the search of his car by two police officers. That issue was decided adversely to plaintiff by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We pretermit whether that holding collaterally estops the plaintiff in the present case.2 The officers who conducted the search are not named as parties. The chief of police is named, but he is vicariously liable for the acts of his subordinates only if he directs, orders, participates in, or approves the acts. There is no claim he did so in this case,
a wron/nm
. The prosecuting attorney was not named as a defendant but was mentioned in the other papers filed by plaintiff as being a defendant. Out of caution, the habeas judge ruled as though the prosecuting attorney were a defendant.
. See Brazell v. Adams, 493 F. 2d 489 (CA5, 1974) (collateral estoppel applies, one of the reasons being that the bar of estoppel can always be raised by federal habeas), but see Stone v. Powell, — U.S. —, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (habeas is no longer available for a search and seizure claim if petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to raise it in state court).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. James G. Ledbetter, PH.D., 818 F.2d 791 (11th Cir. 1987)
-
Reimer v. Smith, 663 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau, 600 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1976)
- Billy Floyd (Pete) Brazzell v. Adams, 493 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1974)