Huffman v. Godwin

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Oct. 29, 1969.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-10-29

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1969

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Huth v. Southern Pacific Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-10-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2Robert Lee Huffman, pro se.

¶3John R. McCannon, County Atty., Charles J. Driebe, Jonesboro, Ga., for appellee.

¶4Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CARSWELL, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the *519merits that this ease is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I [Oct. 7, 1969].

¶7In filing this appeal the appellant sought to reverse the district court’s denial of leave to file a complaint for damages in forma pauperis. Since the filing of this appeal, the court below has reconsidered its action and has allowed the complaint to be filed in forma pauperis, thereby rendering this appeal moot. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.