Clinton Howard v. Earl Dupont and Johnny Bonton

Fifth Circuit

Clinton Howard v. Earl Dupont and Johnny Bonton

602 F.2d 1191, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11730

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 19, 1979

Docket78-1876

StatusPublished

This text of 602 F.2d 1191 (Clinton Howard v. Earl Dupont and Johnny Bonton) 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

Clinton Howard v. Earl Dupont and Johnny Bonton, 602 F.2d 1191, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11730 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Howard, an inmate of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, filed a pro se complaint in the district court alleging that despite Howard’s request for protection, appellees failed to protect him from another inmate, and that as a result Howard was attacked by the other inmate with a razor blade and severely injured, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1970). His complaint was dismissed pursuant to a procedure this Court reviewed and found deficient in Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 2416, 60 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1979). See, e. g. Hurst v. Phelps, 579 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1978).

We, therefore, vacate the dismissal of Howard’s complaint and remand for reconsideration by the district court in light of the procedural dictates set forth in Mitchell v. Beaubouef.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Howard, an inmate of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, filed a pro se complaint in the district court alleging that despite Howard’s request for protection, appellees failed to protect him from another inmate, and that as a result Howard was attacked by the other inmate with a razor blade and severely injured, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1970). His complaint was dismissed pursuant to a procedure this Court reviewed and found deficient in Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 2416, 60 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1979). See, e. g. Hurst v. Phelps, 579 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1978).

We, therefore, vacate the dismissal of Howard’s complaint and remand for reconsideration by the district court in light of the procedural dictates set forth in Mitchell v. Beaubouef.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 F.2d 1191, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clinton-howard-v-earl-dupont-and-johnny-bonton-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack