green
Positive treatment
13.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grefer v. Grant
See https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/ (last accessed Sept. 18, 2023). on the charge of unlawful imprisonment to which the petition refer[red];” and the forged instrument conviction was not “positively and demonstrably related” to the unlawful imprisonment charge (quoting Carter v. Procunier, 755 F. 2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir. 1985)); Carter v. Nassau Cnty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John J. Zichko v. State of Idaho Larry Wright, Warden Alan Lance
“It is well settled that a habeas corpus petitioner meets the statutory ‘in custody requirements when, at the time he files the petition[ ] ... he is in custody pursuant to another conviction that is positively and demonstrably related to the conviction he attacks.” Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy C. Cotita v. Pharma-Plast, U.S.A., Inc.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), states in pertinent part, “[A] party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court ... and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” This Court has consistently held that the “granting or denial of leave to amend lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion.” Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985); accord Galvan v. Bexar County, Tex., 785 F.2d 1298, 1304 (5th Cir.1986), reh’g den., 790 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cotita v. Pharma-Plast, U.S.A., Inc.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), states in pert inent part, "[A] party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court ... and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." This Court has consistently held that the "granting or denial of leave to amend lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion." Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985); accord Galvan v. Bexar County, Tex., 785 F.2d 1298, 1304 (5th Cir.1986), reh'g den., 790 F.2d 890 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brenda Pope v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation
Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp., 844 F.2d 1142 , 1158 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926 , 109 S.Ct. 311 , 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988); Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Herbert Darby v. Pasadena Police Department
Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985); In re Texas Extrusion Corp., 844 F.2d 1142 , 1158 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 926 , 109 S.Ct. 311 , 102 L.Ed.2d 330 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eddie Williams v. A.L. Lockhart
Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985); see also Petty v. McCotter, 779 F.2d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1986) (pro se habeas petitioner should be given leave to amend petition on remand to raise issues that were raised for the first time on appeal), cert. dismissed, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1596 , 94 L.Ed.2d 679 (1987) (writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alan Lefkowitz v. Michael Fair, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, Arif Hussain v. Michael Fair, Etc., Alan Lefkowitz
See, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, supra; Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129-30 (5th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patricio Galvan, and Leandro L. Gonzales v. Bexar County, Tx., and Rudy Garza and Joe Neaves
(2×)
The decision to grant or deny “leave to amend lies within the discretion of the district court, and is subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion.” Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hartman v. Medina County Sheriff's Office
See Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir. 1985) (“It is well settled that a habeas corpus petitioner meets the statutory ‘in custody’ requirements when, at the time he files the petition: (1) he is in custody pursuant to the conviction he attacks or (2) he is in custody pursuant to another conviction that is positively and demonstrably related to the conviction he attacks.” (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 (d); 2254(a), (b)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Charnock v. Herbert
(2×)
See Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985) (cited in Carter, supra, at *1) (petitioner meets the statutory “in custody” requirements when he is in custody pursuant to another conviction that is positively and demonstrably related to the conviction he attacks); Ristau v. Kirk, 671 F.Supp. 955, 958 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (same).
cited
Cited "see"
Cordova v. City of Reno
Ordinarily, the writ of habeas corpus will not lie in favor of one not “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; see Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Doreen REEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
See Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Francisco Figueredo-Quintero v. Sandy McCain, Ward
See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 ; Rule 12, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126, 1129 (5th Cir. 1985) (applying Rule 15(a) in a § 2254 proceeding).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
James Ray Young v. James A. Lynaugh, Interim Director Texas Department of Corrections
As we stated in Sinclair and reiterated in Escobedo, “ ‘ “in custody” for jurisdiction under § 2254(a) does not necessarily mean “in custody for the offense being attacked.” ’ ” Escobedo, 655 F.2d at 614 (quoting Sinclair, 599 F.2d at 676 ); see also Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126 , 1129 (5th Cir.1985); Cappetta v. Wainwright, 406 F.2d 1238, 1239 (5th Cir. 1969) (citing Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), and other cases), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 846 , 90 S.Ct. 55 , 24 L.Ed.2d 96 (1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnny Lee Long v. O.L. McCotter Director, Texas Department of Corrections
Id. n. 10; see also Carter v. Procunier, 755 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir.1985). 28 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ralph Partridge and Betty Partridge
v.
Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, Texas
v.
Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, Texas
83-2615.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 12, 1985.
Published
Ralph PARTRIDGE and Betty Partridge, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
TWO UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS OF the CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS,
et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 83-2615.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 12, 1985.
John P. Mustachio, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Mary Madigan Dinan, Asst. City Atty., Houston, Tex., for City of Houston and Houston Police.
D. Reid Walker, Houston, Tex., for Morris.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
(Opinion 02/04/85, 5th Cir.1985, 751 F.2d 1448)
Before WISDOM, RANDALL, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
1
IT IS ORDERED that this Court's opinion and judgment entered on February 4, 1985, is hereby withdrawn, and a new decision and judgment will be entered in due course.