Joseph Ridley and Woody Jenkins v. Cecil McCall Chairman, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Etc.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Cicero v. Olgiati (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
- Mysaev v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (District Court, N.D. Texas 2022)
- Central Pines Land Co. v. United States (5th Cir. 2001)
- U.S. Department Of Health & Human Services v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (4th Cir. 1992)
- Gilbert v. Milliken & Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1992)
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Social Security Administration v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (4th Cir. 1992)
- William v. Travelers Insurance Co. (In re Reinboldt) (Bankr. D. Minn. 1983)
- Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Board (Mass. 1976)
- Davis v. United States (District Court, D. Kansas 1976)
- Cruz v. Skelton (5th Cir. 1976)
- Mitchell v. Sigler (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1975)
- Samuel K. Garafola v. Charles L. Benson, Warden (7th Cir. 1974)
- Cook v. Whiteside (5th Cir. 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a § 1983 suit attacking on a broad front the practices of the Georgia Parole Board. The District Court dismissed the complaint without issuing a show cause order requiring a factual response by the State or holding any evidentiary hearing. The District Court was of the view that this result was compelled by this Court’s en banc decision in Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 278. Subsequently the judgment of this Court was vacated and remanded for determination of whether the case was moot, Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 1973, 414 U.S. 809, 94 S.Ct. 79, 38 L.Ed.2d 44, and thereafter this Court by order vacated the judgment of the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Consequently, Scarpa has no precedential value.
In view of this we think the interest of orderly administration calls for remand to the District Court for reconsideration. Since these sometime awesome constitutional principles ought not to be explored in a non-factual setting, the Court should take appropriate steps to assure development of the actual facts, not just the pleaded contention of the parties.
Vacated and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.