Albert H. Carter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Albert H. Carter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director Texas Department of Corrections

519 F.2d 1136, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 24, 1975

Docket75-2474

StatusPublished

Cited by35 cases

This text of 519 F.2d 1136 (Albert H. Carter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director Texas Department of Corrections) 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

Albert H. Carter v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director Texas Department of Corrections, 519 F.2d 1136, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12639 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Alleging (1) conversion by prison guards of his radio, and (2) negligence by guards in leaving his personal property (watches, wedding ring, electric fan, et cetera,) in a place exposed to thieves, from which they were stolen, Carter brought suit below under Title 42 U.S.G. § 1983 against the Director of the Texas Department of Corrections for claimed violation of his civil rights. He sought damages of $427.75 for the lost articles and $1000.00 in punitive damages. The demand for punitive damages was supported by allegations of malice and criminal intent.

The district court dismissed the complaint without hearing and without requiring responsive pleading from the ap-pellee, holding that the defendant director is not liable for the acts of his employees and that allegations of negligence will not support an action for violation of civil rights. Determining that this dismissal was improvidently granted, we reverse and remand for further proceedings below.

It is established law that prison administrators may under certain circumstances be held vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates. Holland v. Connors, 5 Cir., 1974, 491 F.2d 539; Parker v. McKeithen, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F.2d 553, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 838, 95 S.Ct. 67, 42 L.Ed.2d 65; Tuley v. Heyd, 5 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 590. It is also now clear that a civil rights action lies for wrongful confiscation or loss by prison *1137 officials of an inmate’s property. Watson v. Stynchcombe, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 393; Clayton v. Wade, 5 Cir., 1973, 487 F.2d 595; Culp v. Martin, 5 Cir., 1973, 471 F.2d 814; Montana v. Harrel-son, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1091.

Upon remand, the district court is directed to require responsive pleading and to permit development of the facts at an adversary hearing, before a jury if requested. Liberal amendment of the present original pro se complaint should be permitted upon application. If no request is made for a jury, adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P. will be in order.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

Alleging (1) conversion by prison guards of his radio, and (2) negligence by guards in leaving his personal property (watches, wedding ring, electric fan, et cetera,) in a place exposed to thieves, from which they were stolen, Carter brought suit below under Title 42 U.S.G. § 1983 against the Director of the Texas Department of Corrections for claimed violation of his civil rights. He sought damages of $427.75 for the lost articles and $1000.00 in punitive damages. The demand for punitive damages was supported by allegations of malice and criminal intent.

The district court dismissed the complaint without hearing and without requiring responsive pleading from the ap-pellee, holding that the defendant director is not liable for the acts of his employees and that allegations of negligence will not support an action for violation of civil rights. Determining that this dismissal was improvidently granted, we reverse and remand for further proceedings below.

It is established law that prison administrators may under certain circumstances be held vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates. Holland v. Connors, 5 Cir., 1974, 491 F.2d 539; Parker v. McKeithen, 5 Cir., 1974, 488 F.2d 553, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 838, 95 S.Ct. 67, 42 L.Ed.2d 65; Tuley v. Heyd, 5 Cir., 1973, 482 F.2d 590. It is also now clear that a civil rights action lies for wrongful confiscation or loss by prison *1137 officials of an inmate’s property. Watson v. Stynchcombe, 5 Cir., 1974, 504 F.2d 393; Clayton v. Wade, 5 Cir., 1973, 487 F.2d 595; Culp v. Martin, 5 Cir., 1973, 471 F.2d 814; Montana v. Harrel-son, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1091.

Upon remand, the district court is directed to require responsive pleading and to permit development of the facts at an adversary hearing, before a jury if requested. Liberal amendment of the present original pro se complaint should be permitted upon application. If no request is made for a jury, adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P. will be in order.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 F.2d 1136, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 12639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-h-carter-v-w-j-estelle-jr-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack