Sheldon Polakoff & Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Sheldon Polakoff & Gloria Polakoff v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chapa v. Ingram (ca5, 2004-10-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Chapa v. Ingram
5th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polakoff v. Henderson, 370 F.Supp. 690, 693 (N.D.Ga.1973), aff'd, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1974) (adopting district court’s reasoning). *478 Chapa’s argument that he raised a viable RICO claim is likewise unavailing.
discussed Cited "see" William Mitchell v. Phillip Morris Incorporated
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polakoff v. Henderson, 370 F.Supp. 690, 693 (N.D.Ga.1973), aff 'd, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1974) (“A prisoner does not acquire a new domicile in the place of his imprisonment, but retains the domicile he had prior to incarceration.”); 4 see also Singletary v. Cont’l Ill.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hill v. Washington State Department of Corrections
W.D. Wash. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Polakoff v. Henderson, 370 F.Supp. 690, 694-95 (N.D.Ga.1973), aff'd, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir.1974) (uniform policies are not required at each and every penitentiary within the federal prison system); Cooper v. Elrod, 622 F.Supp. 373 (N.D.Ill.1985) (Equal Protection Clause does not require conditions, practices and rules at county and state correctional facilities to be identical). 4 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McGinnis v. Stevens
Alaska · 1975 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Polalcoff v. Henderson, 488 F.2d 977 (5th Cir. 1974), aff’g 370 F.Supp. 690 (N.D.Ga.1973) ; Tarlton v. Clark, 441 F.2d 384 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 403 U.S. 934 , 91 S.Ct. 2263 , 29 L.Ed.2d 713 (1971).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sheldon POLAKOFF and Gloria Polakoff, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
J. D. HENDERSON, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Defendant-Appellee
73-3427.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 28, 1974.
488 F.2d 977
Sheldon Polakoff and Gloria Polakoff, pro se., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., William D. Mallard, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Coleman, Gewin, Morgan, Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a damage suit, grounded on the Civil Rights Act and diversity jurisdiction, filed by a federal prisoner and his wife. [1] The appellants[*978] sued the warden of the institution where the husband is confined, complaining that the warden has denied marital visitations to the appellants. The district court stated reasons for its ruling in a comprehensive memorandum opinion', which is reported as Polakoff v. Henderson, N.D.Ga.1973, 370 F.Supp. 690. We affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in the district court’s said opinion.

Affirmed.

1

. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.