Filed: May 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Case: 10-70002 Document: 00511481626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 18, 2011 No. 10-70002 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk HENRY W. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LYNN SWITZER, District Attorney for the 31st Judicial District of Texas, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CV-281 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
Summary: Case: 10-70002 Document: 00511481626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 18, 2011 No. 10-70002 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk HENRY W. SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LYNN SWITZER, District Attorney for the 31st Judicial District of Texas, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CV-281 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ..
More
Case: 10-70002 Document: 00511481626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 18, 2011
No. 10-70002
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
HENRY W. SKINNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LYNN SWITZER,
District Attorney for the 31st Judicial District of Texas,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:09-CV-281
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 10-70002 Document: 00511481626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2011
No. 10-70002
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this court’s affirmance of the
district court’s dismissal. Skinner v. Switzer,
131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011). We
VACATE and REMAND the judgment of the district court for further proceed-
ings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive. We express no view on
what decisions the district court should make on remand.
2