Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections

457 F.2d 502, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1972

Docket72-1119

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 502 (Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division 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

Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, 457 F.2d 502, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner instituted the present § 1983 suit seeking to have the Florida prison law library facilities upgraded, or in the alternative, to have the State provide counsel to assist prisoners in their legal endeavors. 1 Recognizing that the Supreme Court then had pending before it the case of Younger v. Gilmore, 2 which was expected to answer the identical question posed by this case, namely, “Does the State have an affirmative federal constitutional duty to furnish prison inmates with expensive law libraries or, alternatively to provide inmates with professional or quasi professional legal assistance?” (39 L.W. 3169), but incorrectly, though hedgingly, predicting the Supreme Court decision in Gilmore, the District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner to refile his suit should the Supreme Court decision in Gilmore be contrary to the District Court’s expectations. It was, and accordingly, we summarily vacate the dismissal of the § 1983 petition and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Gilmore, supra, affirming Gilmore v. Lynch, N.D.Cal. (Three-Judge), 1970, 319 F.Supp. 105; Cruz v. Hauck, 1971, 404 U.S. 59, 92 S.Ct. 313, 30 L.Ed.2d 217; Johnson v. Avery, 1969, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718; and Novak v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 661, rehearing en banc denied, 1972, 456 F.2d 1303 [1972],

Part of the relief sought by petitioner was denied by the District Court on the authority of Cruz v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 445 F.2d 801. That decision has since been reversed by the Supreme Court, Cruz v. Beto, 1972, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 [1972], and a companion case was likewise reversed by the Supreme Court, Cruz v. Hauck, supra.

Vacated and remanded.

1

. This case comes to us on petitioner-appellant’s motion for summary remand. We dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1158.

2

. Younger v. Gilmore, 1971, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142.

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner instituted the present § 1983 suit seeking to have the Florida prison law library facilities upgraded, or in the alternative, to have the State provide counsel to assist prisoners in their legal endeavors. 1 Recognizing that the Supreme Court then had pending before it the case of Younger v. Gilmore, 2 which was expected to answer the identical question posed by this case, namely, “Does the State have an affirmative federal constitutional duty to furnish prison inmates with expensive law libraries or, alternatively to provide inmates with professional or quasi professional legal assistance?” (39 L.W. 3169), but incorrectly, though hedgingly, predicting the Supreme Court decision in Gilmore, the District Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner to refile his suit should the Supreme Court decision in Gilmore be contrary to the District Court’s expectations. It was, and accordingly, we summarily vacate the dismissal of the § 1983 petition and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Gilmore, supra, affirming Gilmore v. Lynch, N.D.Cal. (Three-Judge), 1970, 319 F.Supp. 105; Cruz v. Hauck, 1971, 404 U.S. 59, 92 S.Ct. 313, 30 L.Ed.2d 217; Johnson v. Avery, 1969, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718; and Novak v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 453 F.2d 661, rehearing en banc denied, 1972, 456 F.2d 1303 [1972],

Part of the relief sought by petitioner was denied by the District Court on the authority of Cruz v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1971, 445 F.2d 801. That decision has since been reversed by the Supreme Court, Cruz v. Beto, 1972, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 [1972], and a companion case was likewise reversed by the Supreme Court, Cruz v. Hauck, supra.

Vacated and remanded.

1

. This case comes to us on petitioner-appellant’s motion for summary remand. We dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 1158.

2

. Younger v. Gilmore, 1971, 404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 F.2d 502, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-raymond-hooks-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack