Benton C. Sullens v. Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.

Fifth Circuit

Benton C. Sullens v. Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.

446 F.2d 1392, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8985

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1971

Docket71-1133

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 446 F.2d 1392 (Benton C. Sullens v. Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.) 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

Benton C. Sullens v. Bryant S. Carroll, Jr., 446 F.2d 1392, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8985 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Benton C. Sullens has appealed from the district court’s grant of a summary judgment to members of a law firm whom he sued for malpractice. The cause of action was based on Attorney Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.’s representation of the appellant as his court-appointed counsel in a federal criminal case. See Sullens v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 545.

Federal jurisdiction was predicated on diversity of citizenship, the district court having held previously that there was no jurisdiction of the cause under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sullens v. Carroll, M.D.Fla.1970, 308 F.Supp. 311.

The court below awarded summary judgment on grounds that court-appointed counsel for defendants in federal criminal cases are immune from suit the same as federal officials are." The Fourth Circuit so held in Jones v. Warlick, 4th Cir. 1966, 364 F.2d 828, for reasons more fully stated in the comprehensive unpublished opinion of Circuit Judge J. Spencer Bell, sitting by designation. We have examined the authorities cited in those opinions, including our own decision in Norton v. McShane, 5th *1393 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 855, cert. denied 1965, 380 U.S. 981, 85 S.Ct. 1345, 14 L.Ed.2d 274 and we agree that the immunity doctrine is applicable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court from which this appeal is taken.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Benton C. Sullens has appealed from the district court’s grant of a summary judgment to members of a law firm whom he sued for malpractice. The cause of action was based on Attorney Bryant S. Carroll, Jr.’s representation of the appellant as his court-appointed counsel in a federal criminal case. See Sullens v. United States, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 545.

Federal jurisdiction was predicated on diversity of citizenship, the district court having held previously that there was no jurisdiction of the cause under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sullens v. Carroll, M.D.Fla.1970, 308 F.Supp. 311.

The court below awarded summary judgment on grounds that court-appointed counsel for defendants in federal criminal cases are immune from suit the same as federal officials are." The Fourth Circuit so held in Jones v. Warlick, 4th Cir. 1966, 364 F.2d 828, for reasons more fully stated in the comprehensive unpublished opinion of Circuit Judge J. Spencer Bell, sitting by designation. We have examined the authorities cited in those opinions, including our own decision in Norton v. McShane, 5th *1393 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 855, cert. denied 1965, 380 U.S. 981, 85 S.Ct. 1345, 14 L.Ed.2d 274 and we agree that the immunity doctrine is applicable. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court from which this appeal is taken.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 F.2d 1392, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benton-c-sullens-v-bryant-s-carroll-jr-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack