Thomas W. Shaw v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., and R. M. Cousins

Fifth Circuit

Thomas W. Shaw v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., and R. M. Cousins

542 F.2d 954, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 26, 1976

Docket76-3205

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 542 F.2d 954 (Thomas W. Shaw v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., and R. M. Cousins) 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

Thomas W. Shaw v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., and R. M. Cousins, 542 F.2d 954, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Shaw, a Texas prisoner, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint regarding prison disciplinary procedures. While the suit was pending below, Shaw escaped from custody. Three months and two hearing dates later, the district court dismissed this action without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court subsequently affirmed that order, denying reinstatement of the action after appellant’s recapture. Both orders lay within the discretion granted the district judge by the rule.

The court conscientiously avoided erecting an absolute bar to Shaw’s ability to complain of any past procedural abuses in prison discipline. It certainly need do no more when faced with a fugitive plaintiff. Had Shaw escaped while appealing to this court, he would have been subject to unconditional dismissal, at least unless his surrender followed within a reasonable time, usually thirty days. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Broadway v. City of Montgomery, 530 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Shelton, 508 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1975).

Because the district court’s orders were well within the discretion accorded by Rule 41(b) and recent jurisprudence regarding the procedural rights of fugitives, they are

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Shaw, a Texas prisoner, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint regarding prison disciplinary procedures. While the suit was pending below, Shaw escaped from custody. Three months and two hearing dates later, the district court dismissed this action without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court subsequently affirmed that order, denying reinstatement of the action after appellant’s recapture. Both orders lay within the discretion granted the district judge by the rule.

The court conscientiously avoided erecting an absolute bar to Shaw’s ability to complain of any past procedural abuses in prison discipline. It certainly need do no more when faced with a fugitive plaintiff. Had Shaw escaped while appealing to this court, he would have been subject to unconditional dismissal, at least unless his surrender followed within a reasonable time, usually thirty days. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Broadway v. City of Montgomery, 530 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Shelton, 508 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1975).

Because the district court’s orders were well within the discretion accorded by Rule 41(b) and recent jurisprudence regarding the procedural rights of fugitives, they are

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

542 F.2d 954, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-w-shaw-v-w-j-estelle-jr-and-r-m-cousins-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack