Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

440 F.2d 792

Docket No. 30763.

Hines v. Pitcher

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 19, 1971.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-03-19

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1978

9 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Smith v. Hooey · Dickey v. Florida · Olmstead Citizens for a Better Community v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-03-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Francis Noel Hines, pro se.

¶2Cheney C. Joseph, Jr., Ralph L. Roy, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.

¶3Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Appellant appeals from an order of the District Court denying his pro se petition to enjoin Louisiana authorities from prosecuting him. We affirm.

¶6This case is ripe for dismissal. If the plaintiff’s characterization of this matter as an injunction against Louisiana officials is accepted, then the appellant’s failure to file a brief warrants dismissal under Local Rule 9(b). If the matter is treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, May v. Georgia, 409 *793F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1969), then the lack of a certificate of probable cause requires dismissal. McFrederick v. Florida, 261 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1958).

¶7Nevertheless, we have examined the entire record. The allegations of the petition are wholly insufficient to support a claim of denial of a speedy trial as recognized by Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1564, 26 L.Ed.2d 26 (1970).

¶8Affirmed.

/440/f2d/792 · .json · Public domain