Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Nazareth GATES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. John COLLIER et al., Defendants-Appellees, 1976 — 525 F.2d 965 · caselaw · US
General
Nazareth GATES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. John COLLIER et al., Defendants-Appellees
525 F.2d 965·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1976
Before COLEMAN, CLARK and IN-GRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Nazareth GATES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. John COLLIER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 75-2397.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1976.
Roy S. Haber, Boulder, Colo., Herman Wilson, David Lipman, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Roger Googe, James M. Ward, Asst. Attys. Gen., A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Shawn Moore, Paul S. Lawrence, Dept, of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Before COLEMAN, CLARK and IN-GRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from the district court’s refusal to modify its prior injunctive order in response to allegations of racial discrimination toward inmates in the employment and training of personnel at the Mississippi State Penitentiary; and from the modification of the prisoner mail regulation contained in the prior order which plaintiffs asserted was modified in a manner which violates the ruling of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). The district court rendered a full opinion explicating its reasoning, Gates v. Collier, 390 F.Supp. 482 (N.D., Miss., 1975).
We find no abuse of the broad discretion vested in the trial court to consider revision of an ongoing injunctive decree. On the reported opinion of the district court, supra, its judgment is
Affirmed.