William James Maddox v. Carl Thomas, Sheriff, 671 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
William James Maddox v. Carl Thomas, Sheriff, 671 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Richard v. Gautreaux (lamd, 2025-09-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard v. Gautreaux
M.D. La. · 2025 · confidence medium
Apr. 1, 2024) (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 , 245–46 (1983); Fuselier v. Mancuso, 354 F. App'x 49 , 49–50 (5th Cir. 2009)). 188 Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2000); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976). 189 Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225 ). 190 Graves v. Williams, No. 23-1685, 2024 WL 3548317 , at *4 (M.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roberts v. Jackson Parish
W.D. La. · 2024 · confidence medium
In Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (Sth Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit specifically held that a that a Dallas County pretrial detainee had “no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in being imprisoned at one carcel rather than other, even if ‘life in one is much more disagreeable than in another...’ ” (Citing Meacham v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pierce v. Peterson
E.D. La. · 2024 · confidence medium
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Biliski v. Harborth, 55 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1995); Maddox _v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (Sth Cir. 1982); Oatis v. St.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burpee v. Hays County
W.D. Tex. · 2022 · confidence medium
Inmates generally have “no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in being imprisoned at one carcel rather than other, even if ‘life in one is much more disagreeable than in 3 another....’” Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Meacham, 427 U.S. at 225 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Jagers
5th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Generally, there is no Fourteenth Amendment “liberty interest in being imprisoned at one [prison facility] rather than [an]other, even if life in one is much more disagreeable than in another.” Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir.1982) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aranda v. Scott
5th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
No. 00-21129 -2- another, even if life in one is much more disagreeable than in another.” Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir. 1982)(internal citation and quotation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Getch v. Rosenbach
D.N.J. · 1988 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that a convict awaiting sentencing has no such right arising from the Due Process Clause). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) DAVID BOUDREAUX v. CHARLES FOTI, Sheriff, Etc., ET AL
unknown court · confidence medium
Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir. 1982).
cited Cited "see" Andrews v. Belt
5th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Maddox v. Thomas, 671 F.2d 949, 950 (5th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William James MADDOX, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Carl THOMAS, Sheriff, Respondent-Appellee
81-1607.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1982.
671 F.2d 949
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 20463
Martin L. Lowy, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellant., Charles J. Baldree, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Gee, Garza, Tate.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
GEE, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Maddox’ action below sought damages from the sheriff of Dallas County, Texas, claimed to have arisen from his confinement for a month in prison rather than for the same period in the Dallas County Jail. He appeals its dismissal.

A three-time convicted felon free on probation, Maddox was arrested in late 1978 on two new charges of aggravated robbery. In March 1979, he pled guilty to one charge and was assessed a 23-year prison term by a jury. On July 30 of that year he pled guilty to the other charge in exchange for a concurrent 23-year sentence. Probation on his earlier sentences was also revoked at that time. He was sentenced either on July 30, 1979, as the sheriff contends, or on September 21,1979, as Maddox claims. It is undisputed, however, that he was transferred to the Texas prison system about August 16, 1979, and was returned from there to the Dallas County Jail on September 17, about a month later. On September 21, 1979, he was returned to prison to serve out his punishment. His claimed damages arise from his having spent the last half of August and the first half of September 1979 in prison rather than in the Dallas County Jail. [1] Claiming deprivation of a “liberty interest,” he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Maddox has, generally speaking, no fourteenth amendment liberty interest in being imprisoned at one cárcel rather than other, even if “life in one is much more disagreeable than in another .... ” Meacham v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976). The exception is where a defendant possesses some “right or justifiable expectation rooted in state law that he will not be transferred except for misbehavior or upon the occurrence of other specified events.” Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 2547, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976). We agree with the court below that Texas law in general confers no such rights upon persons situated as was Maddox at the time of his transfer-confined prior to their sentencing. [2] At best, it is silent on the matter.

AFFIRMED.

1

. One might think such a matter de minimis, but the sheriff did not so contend.

2

. Maddox suggests that as a part of his plea bargain he requested that he be left in Dallas “for awhile,” as his attorney’s affidavit states, before being transferred to prison. The affidavit does not claim, however, that this request was agreed to by the authorities or that the sheriff was advised of any such agreement. In such circumstances, any expectation by Maddox that he would be retained in Dallas was not a “justifiable” one; and he was, in fact, left there for over two weeks after his plea was accepted, a period that seems to us “awhile.”