TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Johnny Rocha v. Louis M. Sowers

Johnny ROCHA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis M. SOWERS Et Al., Respondents-Appellees

Rocha v. Sowers, 454 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1972)
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
January 27, 1972
Docket
No. 72-1141
Judges
Brown, Goldberg, Morgan
Citations
454 F.2d 11551972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11601

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Rocha has applied to this Court for leave to appeal in forma pawperis 1

from the district court’s peremptory denial of his motion to file a Civil Rights action 2

in forma pauperis. We grant his motion and summarily remand the case for further proceedings.

In the complaint which he attempted to file in the court below, Rocha sought $10,000 damages and a mandatory injunction against the respondents, officials of the Louisiana State Prison, where he is incarcerated. He alleged that he has been denied adequate medical treatment for accidental injuries sustained in the prison, and that he is being subjected to unwarranted disciplinary action without due regard for his injuries.

The district court refused to allow the complaint to be filed, stating that it did not present a federal question, but rather one that should be adjudicated in state court. This ruling is clearly incorrect since, as Rocha stated in his pleadings below, the action is founded on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq. See Woolsey v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 450 F.2d 321 . Even if the State of Louisiana provided a remedy for the relief Rocha seeks, federal jurisdiction can be invoked prior to seeking relief in State court. Jones v. Decker, 5th Cir. 1970, 436 F.2d 954 , and cases cited therein.

Accordingly, and without passing upon the merits of the allegations of the complaint, we grant Rocha’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

The cause is remanded to the district court for appropriate findings and conclusions, and a trial on the merits if deemed necessary.

3

1

. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 .

2

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq.

3

. In view of the ruling by this Court, we deny Rocha’s motion for appointment of counsel on this appeal.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 11974: 11978: 11979: 11983: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

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
Woolsey v. Beto, 450 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1972) 9
Jones v. Bill Decker, Etc., No. 30321 Summary Calendar, 436 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1970) 5

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