# Floyd Spruytte v. Richard Walters and Ronald Schink

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 28, 1985 · 753 F.2d 498

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473077

## Case

- **Full name:** Floyd SPRUYTTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard WALTERS and Ronald Schink, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 1985
- **Citations:** 753 F.2d 498; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28673
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weick
- **Judges:** Martin, Jones, Weick
- **Cited by:** 180 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Janet Virgili v. Michelle Gilbert, John Morrison, and Joseph Masi, 272 F.3d 391 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473077

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner *617 “ ‘may receive any book.. . which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution’ ” (quoting Administrative Rule 791.6603)
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner "`may receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution'" (quoting Administrative Rule 791.6603)
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that states a prisoner " ‘may receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or. security of the institution’ ”
- finding liberty interest in receiving a paperback dictionary due to a rule that allows a prisoner to "receive any book ... which does not present a threat to the order or security of the institution"
- finding that officials were not entitled to qualified immunity where the administrative rule that they violated was the very rule that created the property interest

## Opinion text

WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
In my opinion, the district judge abused his discretion in his sua sponte dismissal of Spruytte’s in forma pauperis complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without allowing service of the complaint on the defendants and permitting Spruytte to amend his complaint or respond to the court’s notice of intent to dismiss. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for trial.
I would prefer this treatment of the case rather than to resort to the lengthy opinion of my learned and industrious colleague which contains many facts which are not part of the record, most of which are undoubtedly true.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473077. Public record. Not legal advice.