Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

563 F.2d 148

Docket No. 77-2721.

Jordan v. Jones

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Nov. 14, 1977.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1977-11-14

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Some of [the inmate’s] long litany of complaints are subsumed in the [class action] opinion and order, some are patently frivolous, but others fall in neither of these categories. The District Court could reopen the [class action] and refer [the inmate’s] complaints to plaintiff counsel therein for them to handle as attorneys for the class, or could consolidate the present case with the [class action]. But it could not dismiss the present case on the basis that it presents issues which are similar to those in the class suit and could be presented in that suit Also, one of the allegations is that jail officials are not complying with the [class action] order. This has to be dealt with in some manner other than dismissal.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kost v. Kozakiewicz

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · 344 F. Supp. 411 - Taylor v. Sterrett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1977-11-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1993

7 federal appellate ·

90197719801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellant Jordan brought a civil rights action claiming deprivations at the Dallas County, Texas, jail. The District Court dismissed on the ground that the claims asserted were similar to those involved in a class action previously decided by the court and over which it had retained jurisdiction, Taylor v. Sterrett, 344 F.Supp. 411 (N.D.Tex.1972), and that plaintiff counsel in that case are competent to represent the interests of the Taylor class and can raise in the class suit any new matters that might be presented by this plaintiff’s complaint. Some of Jordan’s long litany of complaints are subsumed in the Taylor opinion and order, some are patently frivolous, but others fall in neither of these categories. The District Court could reopen the Taylor case and refer Jordan’s complaints to plaintiff counsel therein for them to handle as attorneys for the class, or could consolidate the present case with the Taylor case. But it could not dismiss the present case on the basis that it presents issues which are similar to those in the class suit and could be presented in that suit. Also one of Jordan’s allegations is that jail officials are not complying with the Taylor order. This has to be dealt with in some manner other than dismissal.

¶7VACATED and REMANDED.

/563/f2d/148 · .json · Public domain