Home/Fifth Circuit/Fernando R. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL PASO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (Project Bravo, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee

Fernando R. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL PASO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (Project Bravo, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee

462 F.2d 121
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 1972
Docket71-2269
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 462 F.2d 121 (Fernando R. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL PASO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (Project Bravo, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee) 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
Fernando R. GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL PASO COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (Project Bravo, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee, 462 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The District Court dismissed this case for failure to state a claim of discriminatory discharge under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e, which is alleged in the complaint to give the Federal court jurisdiction.

An opportunity to amend should have been accorded, so dismissal with prejudice was unwarranted. Whether plaintiff can state a claim under this statute, we do not determine or even faintly intimate.

The fact that the Judge considered affidavits from both sides does not save the order of dismissal with prejudice. Under Rule 12(b) such affidavits at best might bring into play Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Georgia, Southern & F. Ry. Co. v. Atlantic *122 Coast Line R. Co., 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 493, but the 10 day notice that it would be treated as a motion for summary judgment and the opportunity to furnish additional material were not given. The case could not be decided in this way at this stage.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Albert Jones, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
917 F.2d 1528 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
Estate of Arthur Smith, Jr. v. Tarrant County Hospital District
691 F.2d 207 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
Jack R. Hanson v. Polk County Land, Inc.
608 F.2d 129 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
Underwood v. Hunter
604 F.2d 367 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
Nadeau v. State
395 A.2d 107 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1978)
Capodilupo v. Petringa
369 N.E.2d 1034 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1977)
Moses Davis, Jr., for Themselves Individually and as Members and Representatives of a Class of Other Persons Similarly Situated v. James Howard
561 F.2d 565 (Fifth Circuit, 1977)
Joseph H. Sharlitt and Neal E. Krucoff v. Joseph B. Gorinstein and William F. Mahoney
535 F.2d 282 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Mrs. Daisy SCOTT Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COURTESY INNS, INC. D/B/A Heidelberg Hotel, Jackson, Mississippi, Defendant-Appellee
472 F.2d 563 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
462 F.2d 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernando-r-gutierrez-plaintiff-appellant-v-el-paso-community-action-ca5-1972.