A. Robert Freeley v. United States

Fifth Circuit

A. Robert Freeley v. United States

465 F.2d 1403

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 13, 1972

Docket72-1127

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 465 F.2d 1403 (A. Robert Freeley v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Robert Freeley v. United States, 465 F.2d 1403 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A letter from appellant, a federal prisoner, to the district court was, at the election of the district court, treated as a petition for mandamus, docketed and dismissed. There was no service upon the United States nor any agent thereof and no response was required.

Relying on notice pleading concepts and the supervening Supreme Court decision of Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, appellant now urges that he was entitled to offer proof to substantiate the claims contained in the letter. We agree. Since the district court so considered it, we proceed on the assumption that appellant’s letter is a complaint or pleading. Having in mind the allegations which are set forth in the letter with respect to his need for security from attack by other inmates, we cannot say with assurance that it appears beyond doubt that appellant could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. This is the test of Haines v. Kerner, supra, also in-involving a prisoner suit.

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

A letter from appellant, a federal prisoner, to the district court was, at the election of the district court, treated as a petition for mandamus, docketed and dismissed. There was no service upon the United States nor any agent thereof and no response was required.

Relying on notice pleading concepts and the supervening Supreme Court decision of Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, appellant now urges that he was entitled to offer proof to substantiate the claims contained in the letter. We agree. Since the district court so considered it, we proceed on the assumption that appellant’s letter is a complaint or pleading. Having in mind the allegations which are set forth in the letter with respect to his need for security from attack by other inmates, we cannot say with assurance that it appears beyond doubt that appellant could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. This is the test of Haines v. Kerner, supra, also in-involving a prisoner suit.

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 F.2d 1403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-robert-freeley-v-united-states-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack