JOHN H. THOMAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
FOB JAMES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; LINCOLN HEARD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. JOE OLIVER, WARDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; GEORGE EDWARD COWSEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ROBERT G. BRITTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; CARL HALL, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOE OLIVER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
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 lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a case or controversy, as required by Article III of the Constitution.
Inmates sued prison officials, alleging constitutional violations due to prison regulations limiting the number of people who could send them money. A…
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 Article Iii "Case Or Controversy" Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
. The plaintiffs-appellees are John H. Thomas, George Edward Cowsen, Roosevelt Young-blood, Lincoln Heard, Willie Waggoner, and Carl Hall.
. Admittedly, review of this record was not an easy task. The record is replete with nonsensical passages such as this portion of the examination of the prison chaplain by plaintiffs’ counsel:
Q Have you ever opened up a package or a letter or any type of correspondence that contains money orders in it?
A I have had one, approximately two.
Q What did you do with them?
A The package that contained a money order was approximately a month and a half or something like that. The mail clerk took the money order, posted it out and gave the package to the inmate.
Q Gave what the what?
Record at 54. The magistrate offers one explanation: “Let the record reflect that we are all deaf. The air conditioner is kind of loud here.” Record at 263.
. The question of jurisdiction was not raised by either party, but it is incumbent on a federal court to dismiss an action whenever it appears that jurisdiction is lacking. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F. 2d 191 (5th Cir. 1980); Marshall v. Gibson's Products, Inc. of Plano, 584 F. 2d 668 (5th Cir. 1978).
. Lincoln Heard testified that he needed more money to purchase personal items such as “house shoes,” and Roosevelt Youngblood stated that he needed money for “[n]ot much other than gambling and buying things.” Record at 136-8 and 165.
. There is not even any convincing evidence that the money order restriction causes the plaintiffs to receive less money. Roosevelt Youngblood only testified that some of his relatives who lived too far from the prison to visit are wealthier than other relatives. Record at 83. John Thomas stated that he “felt like” many more relatives would send him money but for the prison regulation. Record at 151.
. In answer to another claim made by the plaintiffs, the district court also enjoined prison officials from failing to give some form of rudimentary notice and explanation to a prisoner whenever a package or letter addressed to that prisoner is returned to its sender. The defendants-appellants do not appeal that portion of the district court order, and we leave it undisturbed since the record reveals that this claim by the plaintiffs was based on a true “controversy” within the meaning of Article III.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975)
- Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972)
- Gene M. Oswalt et vir v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Marshall v. Gibson's Prods., 584 F.2d 668 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Smith v. Price, 616 F.2d 1371 (5th Cir. 1980)