DONALD LEE FOX, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
L. B. SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

5th Cir. | 1977-08-24
No. 77-1694
558 F.2d 235 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.


Facts & Procedural History

An inmate attacked another inmate after a prison guard opened the cell door. The injured inmate sued prison authorities under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

An Alabama prison guard opened a cell door to allow the occupant to place a radio outside for the enjoyment of other prisoners. The occupant thereupon stabbed Donald Lee Fox, a fellow convict, working out side the cell. Fox went to the hospital and was reported dead. Some of his personal property was distributed to other inmates. Fox lived, however, and brought this 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 suit against the Alabama prison authorities to recover for his personal injuries and lost property. A prior panel of this Court held he was entitled to trial on the merits of his allegation that official negligence was responsible for the harm he suffered. Fox v. Sullivan, 539 F. 2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1976).

On remand, the district court found the officers involved were not negligent. The court found the jail’s procedures for inmate protection were reasonable, and that the officer opening the door had no basis for anticipating the attack. The court said that although some of Fox’ books arid magazines were given to a fellow inmate, some were later returned. The officers acted under the belief Fox was dead. Testimony also established that the officers thought some of the disputed property did not belong to Fox. His other personal effects were properly preserved. The failure to-return a small portion was not the result of intent or negligence.

The only question for our review is whether the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We conclude they are not. The district court properly applied the law under which the case was previously remanded to it.

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw