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.
Charles PITTS, Appellant, v. Captain L. T. GRIFFIN and Sgt. Jerry Carter, Correctional Officers, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees, 1975 — 518 F.2d 72 · caselaw · US
General
Charles PITTS, Appellant, v. Captain L. T. GRIFFIN and Sgt. Jerry Carter, Correctional Officers, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees
518 F.2d 72·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1975
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, 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
Charles PITTS, Appellant, v. Captain L. T. GRIFFIN and Sgt. Jerry Carter, Correctional Officers, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.
No. 75-1115.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
May 16, 1975.
Charles Pitts, pro se.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., and Jack T. Lassiter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Charles Pitts, an inmate at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking injunctive and compensatory relief for alleged violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The gravamen of the complaint involved the confiscation of the appellant’s multi-frequency radio by prison authorities pursuant to a prison regulation limiting radio use to the AM frequency. The District Court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm. See Rhodes v. Sigler, 448 F.2d 1237, 1238 (8th Cir. 1971); Howard v. Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 255, 27 L.Ed.2d 254 (1970).