Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clinton Howard v. Earl Dupont and Johnny Bonton, 78-1876 (1979)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 78-1876 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 19, 1979
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 602 F.2d 1191 Clinton HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl DUPONT and Johnny Bonton, Defendants-Appellees. No. 78-1876 Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Sept. 19, 1979. Clinton Howard, pro se. J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Clinton Howard, an inmate of the Louisian
More

602 F.2d 1191

Clinton HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Earl DUPONT and Johnny Bonton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1876
Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 19, 1979.

Clinton Howard, pro se.

J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before GOLDBERG, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Clinton Howard, an inmate of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, filed a Pro se complaint in the district court alleging that despite Howard's request for protection, appellees failed to protect him from another inmate, and that as a result Howard was attacked by the other inmate with a razor blade and severely injured, in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1970). His complaint was dismissed pursuant to a procedure this Court reviewed and found deficient in Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 99 S. Ct. 2416, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1072 (1979). See, e. g. Hurst v. Phelps, 579 F.2d 940 (5th Cir. 1978).

2

We, therefore, vacate the dismissal of Howard's complaint and remand for reconsideration by the district court in light of the procedural dictates set forth in Mitchell v. Beaubouef.

3

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part. I

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer