Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stanley Sylvester Harris v. Richard Young, Terrell Don Hutto

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided August 16, 1983No. 81-6800Published

1DissentMurnaghan, Circuit Judge

The panel majority misconceives the law of qualified “good faith” immunity in concluding that the defendants, Richard Young and T. Don Hutto, are immune from suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The constitutional obligation of responsible state officials to provide inmates with adequate legal resources was firmly established well before the time period at issue in the case before us. In fact, the obligation had been thrice imposed upon the very state system under challenge here in federal litigation that was completed before the plaintiff, Stanley Sylvester Harris, ever spent a moment…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Bounds v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Wood v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Russell B. Vinnedge v. G. W. Gibbs, Superintendent of Jails, Department of Corrections for the State of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977
  5. Procunier v. NavaretteSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API