Weldon Clark Dixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 472 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Weldon Clark Dixon v. Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr., 472 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …the federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts. at p. 599 ✓
19 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Lucas (ca5, 1993-12-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Smith v. Lucas
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Shane Steiner v. Sheriff John Ledbetter
S.D. Miss. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Federal habeas relief is not available for such claims.” Fields, 2020 WL 4810988 , at *3. “[Additionally], to the extent that [Steiner] asks this Court to hold a bond reduction hearing or direct the state court do so, ‘federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.’” Coleman, 2024 WL 3506729 , at *2 (quoting Dixon v. Beto, 472 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir. 1973)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haygood v. Quarterman
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Moore v. Dretke, 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir.2004); Dixon v. Beto, 472 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir.1973) (“The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James T. Grigsby v. James Mabry, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction, James T. Grigsby v. James Mabry, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction
8th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts. 12 Id. 472 F.2d at 599 (emphasis added). 13 Accord, Anderson v. Beto, 469 F.2d 1076, 1077-78 (5th Cir. 1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grigsby v. Mabry
8th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Id. 472 F.2d at 599 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jack G. Favor v. C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary
5th Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
PER CURIAM: On the authority of Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1076 , Dixon v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1973, 472 F.2d 598 [1973] the District Court’s grant of Habeas Corpus, 348 F.Supp. 423 , is reversed and the case remanded for appropriate hearing by the Federal District Court.
cited Cited "see" Turner v. The State of Texas
N.D. Tex. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dixon v. Beto, 472 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see" Willie Albert Smith v. Eddie Lucas, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dixon v. Beto, 472 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir.1973) (“The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Weldon Clark DIXON, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant
72-2732.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 23, 1973.
472 F.2d 598
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12052
Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant., Weldon Clark Dixon, pro se.
Bell, Dyer, Clark.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is the second appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas where the district court ordered the state court to hold an evidentiary hearing in a habeas matter involving a state prisoner. In Anderson v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1076 [dated November 27,1972], we held that the district court exceeded its authority in so doing. We make the same holding here. Cf. also Clark v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 465 F.2d 888.

The exhaustion of state remedies doctrine, Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886) ; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), is based on principles of comity to afford the state courts the first opportunity to pass on the claims of state prisoners that they were deprived of federal constitutional rights in connection with their restraint. Once state remedies are exhausted, it is the duty of the federal courts to pass on such claims. The federal courts are not empowered to order the state courts to make remedies available nor are they authorized to dictate the type of hearing which is to be conducted by the state courts.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.