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.
James McGEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee, 1975 — 514 F.2d 1234 · caselaw · US
General
James McGEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee
514 F.2d 1234·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1975
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
James McGEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 74 — 4045.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 1975.
Anthony M. DiLeo, New Orleans, La. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., Thompson L. Clarke, Dist. Atty., St. Joseph, La., Charles Brackin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lake Providence, La., John T. Seale, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tallulah, La., for respondent-appellee.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEWIN and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
PER CURIAM:
The district court denied the habeas corpus petition of McGee, a state prisoner, without an evidentiary hearing. Giving this pro se application the liberal construction which is required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), it appears that the appellant claims he was denied the right to appeal. Without any intimation as to the merits of the case, it is our conclusion that the judgment of the district court denying the petition should be vacated and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the appellant’s proof must meet the standards set forth in Worts v. Dut-ton, 395 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1968) and Fitzgerald v. Estelle, 505 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1974).
Vacated and remanded.