426 U.S. 925 (1976)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

ESTELLE v. JUSTICE , 426 U.S. 925 (1976)

426 U.S. 925

W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Correstions, et al.
William Wayne JUSTICE, U. S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, et al.
No. 75-928.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 7, 1976

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1976.

See 429 U.S. 873.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The motion of the respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice POWELL join, dissenting.

The writ of mandamus is granted sparingly and is 'reserved for really extraordinary causes,' Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260 (1947). It seems to me that

Page 426 U.S. 925 , 926

the course of this litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas makes it a 'really extraordinary' case, and I would grant certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declining to issue the writ sought by petitioners.

Sometime prior to April 1974, David Ruiz and other inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections sued petitioner Estelle, Director of the Texas Department of Corrections, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking declaratory and equitable relief from alleged deprivations of rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Constitution of the United States. Jurisdiction was based upon 28 U.S.C. 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 12, 1974, respondent, the Honorable William Wayne Justice, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered the Ruiz case consolidated with several other pending causes in the District which he found to involve common questions of law and fact, and proceeded, sua sponte to enter the following additional order:

    'This Court having also determined that the public interest will be served by the participation of the United States of America in the consolidated civil action, it is ORDERED that the United States of America make an appearance in the above-entitled and numbered consolidated civil action as amicus curiae, in order to investigate fully the facts alleged in the prisoners' complaints, to participate in such civil action with the full rights of a party thereto, and to advise this Court at all stages of the proceedings as to any action deemed appropriate by it.'

Not surprisingly the United States some months later filed a motion to intervene in the action and to add parties defendant thereto. Despite the familiar rule that [426 U.S. 925 , 927]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.