# Fred Arispe Cruz, Cross-Appellants v. Dr. George Beto and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellees

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 5, 1979 · 603 F.2d 1178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465994

## Case

- **Full name:** Fred Arispe CRUZ Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. Dr. George BETO and W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 5, 1979
- **Citations:** 603 F.2d 1178; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11364
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gee
- **Judges:** Wisdom, Clark, Gee
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465994

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that prison officials may not arbitrarily segregate inmates because they are clients of a certain attorney

## Opinion text

GEE, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
With considerable reluctance, I concur in the opinion of the court. My difficulty stems from two sources. The first is that my reading of the record convinces me that Dr. Beto’s actions in the premises were each and all taken in general good faith, that is, in the belief that the trammels placed by him on Mrs. Cruz’ activities were in the best interests of the prison as an institution. The second is that insofar as the technical want of good faith which controls here is *1187 concerned, I am able to say no more for the fact findings below than that they are not clearly erroneous. That I might well, on this record, have found otherwise therefore does not signify.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465994. Public record. Not legal advice.