Charles Arthur Huguenot v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

464 F.2d 1077, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8177
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 28, 1972
Docket28100
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 F.2d 1077 (Charles Arthur Huguenot v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) 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
Charles Arthur Huguenot v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 464 F.2d 1077, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8177 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Charles Arthur Huguenot, an inmate confined in the maximum security section of the Florida State Prison at Raiford, filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief against an asserted deprivation of Federal constitutional rights resulting from the failure of prison officials to establish “probable cause” for placing him in administrative segregation. 1 The plaintiff was accused of throwing a knife into a trash can following a disturbance in a part of the prison’s East Unit known as K-Wing. He denies having participated in the disturbance or in any attempt to dispose of the knife.

We affirm the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint. When a State prisoner asserts a claim which, if proven, could potentially evolve into a substantial Federal question of constitutional proportions, he is ordinarily entitled to an opportunity to prove his allegations. Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir., 1972, 461 F.2d 1080 and companion cases. Here, however, even conceding the truth of Huguenot’s contention that prison officials did not have “probable cause” for removing him from the general prison population, we cannot conclude that the strictures of procedural due process or any other constitutional provision precluded such action. Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9, 12.

Affirmed.

1

. The complaint did not attack the conditions of confinement or any of the restrictions associated with it.

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

Related

Seibert v. McCracken
387 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. Oklahoma, 1974)
Dreyer v. Jalet
349 F. Supp. 452 (S.D. Texas, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
464 F.2d 1077, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 8177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-arthur-huguenot-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1972.