TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frank Stewart v. Charles H. Dameron, District Attorney Ad Hoc, East Baton Rouge Parish

Frank STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles H. DAMERON, District Attorney Ad Hoc, East Baton Rouge Parish, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Stewart v. Dameron, 448 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 16, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1483_1
Judges
Brown, Ingraham, Roney
Citations
448 F.2d 3961971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8024

Opinion — Ingraham

INGRAHAM, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-appellant Stewart brought this action seeking injunctive relief and damages under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , against defendants-appellees, who are various law enforcement officers for the Parish and City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiff, a VISTA worker active in a black community in the Baton Rouge area, alleged that he was a victim of a police conspiracy to entrap him. Plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from further state court prosecution on a pending charge of conspiracy to commit murder.

The district court, after holding a hearing on the merits, denied the in-junctive relief sought and dismissed plaintiff’s suit, 321 F.Supp. 886 . At this hearing the district court placed the burden of proof on the State to prove the good faith of its prosecution, and plaintiff Stewart was not allowed to put on any evidence concerning his allegations of bad faith prosecution and harassment. In essence, the court placed the entire burden of proof on the prosecution, a move to which both parties disagreed.

1

We hold that the district court erred by placing the burden of proof on the defendants. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S. Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and for the appropriate evidentiary hearing required thereby, in which plaintiff shall be allowed to introduce evidence regarding his allegations of bad faith prosecution and harassment.

Vacated and remanded.

1

. The attorney for defendant Dameron told the court:

“My appreciation of the law, your Honor, is that in a matter such as this, the plain- tiff would be required to put on any evidence that he may have with respect to improper motivation of the prosecuting attorney.”

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 31973: 11978: 11979: 11981: 12007: 12021: 119722026peak 1972 · 3

Most recent

  1. MULLANE v. ALMONNo. 4:21-cv-00164 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2021)
  2. Thompson v. Florida Bar526 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
  3. Pizzolato v. Perez524 F. Supp. 914 (E.D. La. 1981)
  4. Wilson v. Thompson593 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1979)
  5. Sandy Ealy v. Talmadge Littlejohn569 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1978)
  6. Kent Milner D/B/A Belvedere Driving School v. Colonel R. H. Burson, Director of the Georgia Department Public Safety470 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) 14,070
Stewart v. Dameron, 321 F. Supp. 886 (E.D. La. 1971) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list