Leon G. Schack v. State of Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Leon G. Schack v. State of Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: N. H. Newman v. State of Alabama and Bill Baxley, Attorney General for the State of Alabama, United States of America, Amicus Curiae (ca5, 1975-01-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) N. H. Newman v. State of Alabama and Bill Baxley, Attorney General for the State of Alabama, United States of America, Amicus Curiae
5th Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
This court has been sedulously mindful of its circumscribed role, see, e. g., Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1972); Sinclair v. Henderson, 435 F.2d 125 , 126 (5th Cir. 1970); Schack v. State of Florida, 391 F.2d 593, 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 916 , 88 S.Ct. 2080 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1376 (1968), and the foundation to which this role is pinioned.
cited Cited "see" O. J. Keller, Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee
Fla. Att'y Gen. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schack v. State of Florida 391 F.2d 593 , 594 (5th Cir. 1968) (deprivation of dental service may justify court intervention).
cited Cited "see" Roland Mike Sanders v. United States
5th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Schack v. Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968); Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harold G. Woolsey v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections (2×)
5th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schack v. State of Florida, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 593 . 3 The alleged imposition of unreasonable punitive work assignments and solitary confinement with the deliberate and knowing effect of activating appellant's tubercular condition states a cause of action under notice pleading concepts in light of the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eighth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Donald A. Cates v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
8th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., Schack v. Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5 Cir. 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leon G. SCHACK, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee
25265_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 10, 1968.
391 F.2d 593
Leon G. Schack, pro se., Earl Faireloth, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for appellee.
Wisdom, Bell, Dyer.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant, an inmate of the Florida State Prison at Raiford, petitioned the District Court to require prison officials to provide him with immediate dental care. The District Court denied relief without a hearing and this appeal followed. We affirm.

Appellant alleges that he will lose some of his teeth unless he receives dental treatment immediately, and that he cannot await his turn for regular dental treatment. He also alleges that the only treatment which the prison dentist will give is to extract teeth. This is contradicted, however, by his allegation that a prison dentist, at another prison in the state system where he was formerly confined, has prepared one of his teeth for capping. He acknowledges that emergency care is available in case of pain but contends again that this will result only in the removal of the offending tooth or teeth.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said in United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 1963, 323 F.2d 410, 412, that:

“State prison officials must of necessity be vested with a wide degree of discretion in determining the nature and character of medical treatment to be afforded state prisoners. It is not the function of federal courts to interfere with the conduct of state officials in carrying out such duties under state law, * * * ”

On the other hand, there may be cases where the deprivation of medical care will warrant judicial inquiry and action. Cf. Edwards v. Duncan, 4 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 993 (federal prisoner); Talley v. Stephens, E.D.Ark., 1965, 247 F.Supp. 683 (state prisoner).

We have couched the test in terms of an abuse of discretion on the part of federal prison officials. Thompson v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 945. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted in Snow v. Gladden, 9 Cir., 1964, 338 F.2d 999, a case involving the ulcer diet of a state prisoner, that prison authorities have a wide discretion as to the treatment of prisoners. See also Stiltner v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 1967, 371 F.2d 420.

We agree with the District Court that the appellant here has not alleged such inadequacy or deprivation of dental treatment as would justify the intervention of the federal court. Additionally, it was not error to deny an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances.

[*595] Neither is there merit in the appellant’s contention that the District Court erred in refusing to appoint counsel for him. See United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 9 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 792; Cole v. Smith, 8 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 721.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.