Neola N. Howard, Etc. v. Ray Fortenberry, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Neola N. Howard, Etc. v. Ray Fortenberry, Etc.

728 F.2d 712, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24060

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 1984

Docket83-4207

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 728 F.2d 712 (Neola N. Howard, Etc. v. Ray Fortenberry, Etc.) 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

Neola N. Howard, Etc. v. Ray Fortenberry, Etc., 728 F.2d 712, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24060 (5th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs seek rehearing on the basis that there was some evidence that individual police jurors (other than those on the Prison Board) must have seen the isolation cells on visits to the institution. Responsibility for administering the Prison Farm was delegated to the Prison Board and, by it, to the Superintendent. The statements about a few police jurors, made in depositions of others, are insufficient to attribute personal knowledge to the police jurors that the isolation cells were being used or might be used in a manner that might cause injury to or death of an inmate.

In their application for rehearing, the plaintiffs point to the fact that they mentioned the state-law-based strict liability claim in the district court, not in their complaint but in their opposition to the Police Jury’s motion to dismiss. We, therefore, vacate that part of our opinion, 723 F.2d 1202, stating that the issue was not raised in the district court. The issue was not discussed in the district court’s opinion, and the district judge’s attention was not thereafter directed to it. Because the case is remanded, we remand also the question whether the complaint suffices as a basis for the claim; if not, whether a claim of this nature may be appropriately raised in the fashion indicated; and, if the claim was properly before the district court, for its action on the claim.

The Director of the Louisiana State Department of Corrections seeks a rehearing on our reversal of the summary judgment in his favor, raising issues both of interpretation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:827(2), (West 1981) in the light of La. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:826 B (West 1981) and possible factual questions concerning the practice under those statutes. These issues have not been previously briefed by the *714 state. They are more appropriately presented to the district court, which may fully consider them for the first time. Nothing in our original opinion shall constitute the law of the case insofar as that opinion considered § 15:827(2).

For these reasons, both applications for rehearing are DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs seek rehearing on the basis that there was some evidence that individual police jurors (other than those on the Prison Board) must have seen the isolation cells on visits to the institution. Responsibility for administering the Prison Farm was delegated to the Prison Board and, by it, to the Superintendent. The statements about a few police jurors, made in depositions of others, are insufficient to attribute personal knowledge to the police jurors that the isolation cells were being used or might be used in a manner that might cause injury to or death of an inmate.

In their application for rehearing, the plaintiffs point to the fact that they mentioned the state-law-based strict liability claim in the district court, not in their complaint but in their opposition to the Police Jury’s motion to dismiss. We, therefore, vacate that part of our opinion, 723 F.2d 1202, stating that the issue was not raised in the district court. The issue was not discussed in the district court’s opinion, and the district judge’s attention was not thereafter directed to it. Because the case is remanded, we remand also the question whether the complaint suffices as a basis for the claim; if not, whether a claim of this nature may be appropriately raised in the fashion indicated; and, if the claim was properly before the district court, for its action on the claim.

The Director of the Louisiana State Department of Corrections seeks a rehearing on our reversal of the summary judgment in his favor, raising issues both of interpretation of La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:827(2), (West 1981) in the light of La. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 15:826 B (West 1981) and possible factual questions concerning the practice under those statutes. These issues have not been previously briefed by the *714 state. They are more appropriately presented to the district court, which may fully consider them for the first time. Nothing in our original opinion shall constitute the law of the case insofar as that opinion considered § 15:827(2).

For these reasons, both applications for rehearing are DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 F.2d 712, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neola-n-howard-etc-v-ray-fortenberry-etc-ca5-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack