St. John v. North Carolina Parole Bd. Com'n

953 F.2d 639, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839, 1992 WL 12346
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 29, 1992
Docket91-7581
StatusUnpublished

This text of 953 F.2d 639 (St. John v. North Carolina Parole Bd. Com'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. John v. North Carolina Parole Bd. Com'n, 953 F.2d 639, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839, 1992 WL 12346 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

953 F.2d 639

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jim ST. JOHN; Curtis Rene Peterson; Cinema Blue of
Charlotte, Incorporated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE BOARD COMMISSION, Louis Columbo,
Chairman; John Patseavouras, Director of the
State of North Carolina Parole
Commission, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-7581.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. 2, 1991.
Decided Jan. 29, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, District Judge. (CA-90-286-C-C-P)

Argued: Bradley Jay Shafer, Okemos, Mich., for appellants; Richard Norwood League, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.

On Brief: Lee J. Klein, Okemos, Mich., Nelson Casstevens, Charlotte, N.C., for appellant; Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.

W.D.N.C., 764 F.Supp. 403.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants, Jim St. John, Curtis Rene Peterson, and Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc., contend that their obscenity convictions in a North Carolina state court violated their constitutional rights under the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. After exhausting their state appellate remedies, St. John and Peterson sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and Cinema Blue sought relief from payment of a $150,000 fine under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for respondents, dismissing both the petition for writ of habeas corpus and Cinema Blue's action, with prejudice. Because we do not find that appellants' convictions violated any federal constitutional rights, see Estelle v. McGuire, --- U.S. ----, 60 U.S.L.W. 4015 (Dec. 4, 1991), we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See St. John v. State of North Carolina Parole Comm'n, 764 F.Supp. 403 (W.D.N.C.1991).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
953 F.2d 639, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839, 1992 WL 12346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-john-v-north-carolina-parole-bd-comn-ca4-1992.