Johnny Eugene Wade v. Honorable Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States

Fifth Circuit

Johnny Eugene Wade v. Honorable Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States

591 F.2d 351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1979

Docket79-8026

StatusPublished

This text of 591 F.2d 351 (Johnny Eugene Wade v. Honorable Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States) 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

Johnny Eugene Wade v. Honorable Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States, 591 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED as frivolous. We take occasion to reiterate that, under Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1977), the proper disposition of such petitions as Wade’s is dismissal for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 2001.-6A. Since the court below erroneously reached the merits of Wade’s claim, however, and since many of the considerations underlying the decision of the court en banc in Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1978), are presented here as well — notably those of judicial economy — we have surveyed the claim’s merits and find them absent.

DENIED.

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

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED as frivolous. We take occasion to reiterate that, under Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1977), the proper disposition of such petitions as Wade’s is dismissal for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 2001.-6A. Since the court below erroneously reached the merits of Wade’s claim, however, and since many of the considerations underlying the decision of the court en banc in Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1978), are presented here as well — notably those of judicial economy — we have surveyed the claim’s merits and find them absent.

DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 F.2d 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-eugene-wade-v-honorable-griffin-bell-attorney-general-of-the-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack