# Jack Howard Potts v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Jack Howard Potts v. Sam Austin

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 17, 1981 · 638 F.2d 727

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467457

## Case

- **Full name:** Jack Howard POTTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Walter ZANT, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellee; Jack Howard POTTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sam AUSTIN, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 17, 1981
- **Citations:** 638 F.2d 727; 60 A.L.R. Fed. 442; 31 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 206; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Morgan
- **Judges:** Anderson, Clark, Morgan, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 68 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/9467457

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that abuse of the writ does not arise when there has not been a "determination on the merits” or where “there has been an intervening change in the law”

## Opinion text

LEWIS R. MORGAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion vacating the district court’s order dismissing the appellant’s petitions. I would affirm the order of the district court. The court below found there was an intentional, knowing and unequivocal relinquishment of a known right which constituted a waiver of federal habeas corpus review. Under the evidence, that there was a waiver and an abandonment is established beyond any doubt. Seeking another stay and consideration of substantively identical successive petitions constitutes an abuse of the writ as defined by Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 . I agree with the district court order that there must be an end to litigation and that such frustration of the legal processes should not be allowed to continue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467457. Public record. Not legal advice.