Jones v. Parker

Fifth Circuit

Jones v. Parker

75 F. App'x 978

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2003

Docket03-60071

StatusUnpublished

This text of 75 F. App'x 978 (Jones v. Parker) 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

Jones v. Parker, 75 F. App'x 978 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Eric Jones, Mississippi prisoner # 45265, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis that the estate of Barry Parker has been closed and lacks assets from which Jones may recover damages. The ability of a plaintiff to recover under state law does not determine whether the plaintiffs action may proceed in federal court. Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir.1971). Moreover, it is unclear whether Jones is precluded from reopening the estate and recovering damages should he prevail on his substantive claims. See Smith v. Estate of King, 501 So.2d 1120, 1122-23 (Miss.1987); Powell v. Buchanan, 245 Miss. 4, 147 So.2d 110, 111-12 (1962).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM. *

Eric Jones, Mississippi prisoner # 45265, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis that the estate of Barry Parker has been closed and lacks assets from which Jones may recover damages. The ability of a plaintiff to recover under state law does not determine whether the plaintiffs action may proceed in federal court. Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 520 (5th Cir.1971). Moreover, it is unclear whether Jones is precluded from reopening the estate and recovering damages should he prevail on his substantive claims. See Smith v. Estate of King, 501 So.2d 1120, 1122-23 (Miss.1987); Powell v. Buchanan, 245 Miss. 4, 147 So.2d 110, 111-12 (1962).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 F. App'x 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-parker-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack