James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

470 F.2d 988

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1972

Docket72-2375

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 470 F.2d 988 (James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department 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

James E. Bilton, Jr. v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 470 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, appellant, a Texas prisoner, alleged that Texas prison officials forced him to perform strenuous labor and refused to furnish medical treatment for his heart disease. On March 30, 1972, the court below dismissed the suit for failure to allege the presence of “exceptional circumstances” warranting interference in prison administration, citing, inter alia, Flint v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 961.

Nineteen days after this order of dismissal was entered, we announced our decision in Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1972, 460 F.2d 765, in which we held that summary dismissal of a civil rights suit alleging a “grave and immediate threat to health or physical well being” was improper. 460 F.2d at 768.

It is understandable that the district judge, reading Flint, supra, without the benefit of our subsequent opinion in Campbell, supra, would have concluded that summary dismissal was proper in this case. Moreover, it might well be argued that appellant did not allege as extreme a case as was present in Campbell. See McCombs, The Fundamentals of Internal Medicine 313-315 (1965). Nevertheless, since appellant did allege that appellees’ conduct subjected him to the risk of “serious bodily injury and possible death,” Complaint p. 4, he should have been afforded the opportunity to substantiate his claim. Campbell, supra; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 1080. See also Bowman v. Hale, 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 1032; Hutchens v. Alabama, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 507.

Vacated and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, appellant, a Texas prisoner, alleged that Texas prison officials forced him to perform strenuous labor and refused to furnish medical treatment for his heart disease. On March 30, 1972, the court below dismissed the suit for failure to allege the presence of “exceptional circumstances” warranting interference in prison administration, citing, inter alia, Flint v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 961.

Nineteen days after this order of dismissal was entered, we announced our decision in Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1972, 460 F.2d 765, in which we held that summary dismissal of a civil rights suit alleging a “grave and immediate threat to health or physical well being” was improper. 460 F.2d at 768.

It is understandable that the district judge, reading Flint, supra, without the benefit of our subsequent opinion in Campbell, supra, would have concluded that summary dismissal was proper in this case. Moreover, it might well be argued that appellant did not allege as extreme a case as was present in Campbell. See McCombs, The Fundamentals of Internal Medicine 313-315 (1965). Nevertheless, since appellant did allege that appellees’ conduct subjected him to the risk of “serious bodily injury and possible death,” Complaint p. 4, he should have been afforded the opportunity to substantiate his claim. Campbell, supra; Williams v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 461 F.2d 1080. See also Bowman v. Hale, 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 1032; Hutchens v. Alabama, 5 Cir. 1972, 466 F.2d 507.

Vacated and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-bilton-jr-v-dr-george-j-beto-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack