Von D. Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District

Fifth Circuit

Von D. Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District

392 F.2d 580, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7546

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 1968

Docket25132_1

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 392 F.2d 580 (Von D. Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District) 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

Von D. Mizell v. North Broward Hospital District, 392 F.2d 580, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7546 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case is a continuation of a controversy that has raged for years in the state courts of Florida. 1 Shifting the battleground to the federal courts, Appellant Mizell filed a complaint in the District Court under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981, 1985, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343(3), 1343(4), alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by defendant Hospital District and certain doctors in Broward County who practiced at the hospital when Appellant’s surgical privileges were suspended in 1961 and reinstatement was denied when formally sought in 1966. The Trial Judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. F.R.Civ.P. 12(b).

Testing the allegations in the complaint under the rule of Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80; 2 Barber v. Motor Vessel “Blue Cat,” 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 626; and Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 172, we hold that the dismissal cannot be sustained. Thus it becomes unnecessary to discuss further either the claims (1961, 1966 or any or all of either or both) or the validity of myriad defenses raised by the defendants, such as res judicata and collateral estoppel. As to none of these do we suggest even the slightest whisper of a possible opinion or a prejudgment. These matters are for the initial consideration of the Trial Judge. See Shelkofsky v. Broughton, 5 Cir., 1968, 388 F.2d 977 and the numerous cases cited therein.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. See Mizell v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., Fla.Ct.App., 1965, 175 So.2d 583; North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Mizell, Fla., 1962, 148 So.2d 1.

2

. “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 102, 2 L.Ed.2d at 84.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case is a continuation of a controversy that has raged for years in the state courts of Florida. 1 Shifting the battleground to the federal courts, Appellant Mizell filed a complaint in the District Court under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981, 1985, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343(3), 1343(4), alleging a violation of his constitutional rights by defendant Hospital District and certain doctors in Broward County who practiced at the hospital when Appellant’s surgical privileges were suspended in 1961 and reinstatement was denied when formally sought in 1966. The Trial Judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. F.R.Civ.P. 12(b).

Testing the allegations in the complaint under the rule of Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80; 2 Barber v. Motor Vessel “Blue Cat,” 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 626; and Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 172, we hold that the dismissal cannot be sustained. Thus it becomes unnecessary to discuss further either the claims (1961, 1966 or any or all of either or both) or the validity of myriad defenses raised by the defendants, such as res judicata and collateral estoppel. As to none of these do we suggest even the slightest whisper of a possible opinion or a prejudgment. These matters are for the initial consideration of the Trial Judge. See Shelkofsky v. Broughton, 5 Cir., 1968, 388 F.2d 977 and the numerous cases cited therein.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. See Mizell v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., Fla.Ct.App., 1965, 175 So.2d 583; North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Mizell, Fla., 1962, 148 So.2d 1.

2

. “[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 102, 2 L.Ed.2d at 84.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F.2d 580, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/von-d-mizell-v-north-broward-hospital-district-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack