Jerald L. Kendrick, Elbert Phillip Long v. David H. Bland

925 F.2d 1464, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16950, 1991 WL 21992
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1991
Docket90-5829
StatusUnpublished

This text of 925 F.2d 1464 (Jerald L. Kendrick, Elbert Phillip Long v. David H. Bland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jerald L. Kendrick, Elbert Phillip Long v. David H. Bland, 925 F.2d 1464, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16950, 1991 WL 21992 (6th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

925 F.2d 1464

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Jerald L. KENDRICK, et al., Plaintiffs,
Elbert Phillip Long, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David H. BLAND, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-5829.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 20, 1991.

Before DAVID A. NELSON and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and HACKETT, District Judge.*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Elbert Phillip Long is an inmate at the Kentucky State Reformatory. He filed a motion to hold the defendant prison officials in contempt for their failure to comply with a portion of the consent decree entered in Kendrick v. Bland, 541 F.Supp. 21 (W.D.Ky.1981). The district court declined to find the defendants in contempt. This appeal followed the denial of a motion to reconsider. Long has filed a brief without benefit of counsel.

Upon consideration, we find that the district court correctly disposed of the contempt motion. Long's action deals with a single parole revocation dispute. A contempt citation under the consent decree would only issue if the defendants were shown to have systematically breached their agreed duty to set up a procedure whereby technical parole violators are diverted to a community treatment center. The action is meritless.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable Barbara K. Hackett, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

Kendrick v. Bland
541 F. Supp. 21 (W.D. Kentucky, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
925 F.2d 1464, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 16950, 1991 WL 21992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerald-l-kendrick-elbert-phillip-long-v-david-h-bland-ca6-1991.