Document: 426 U.S. 471 96 S.Ct. 2640 48 L.Ed.2d 788 Robert BURRELL et al., petitioners,v.Milton McCRAY al. No. 75-44. Supreme Court of the United States June 14, 1976 On petition for writ certiorari to Appeals Fourth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Mr. Justice STEVENS, concurring. 3 Had I been a Member when was presented, would have voted deny because opinion Circuit correctly states applicable law. For same reason, affirm after oral argument. Although did not vote dismiss granted, do dissent from that action two reasons. 4 First, it my understanding at least one who grant has now writ; accordingly, does impair integrity Rule Four. 5 Second, just Court's broad control its discretionary docket includes power circumstances disclosed by careful study record were fully apprehended time Monrosa v. Carbon Black, Inc., 359 180, 183, 79 710, 723, so also, we should retain take like further law discloses there no need an this on questions presented petition. Even though agree with BRENNAN in case are important, am nevertheless persuaded state facts sufficiently clear dismissal permissible exercise power. 6 WHITE dissents. He judgment Appeals. 7 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 8 Certiorari granted case, 423 923, 264, 46 249, consider questions: 9 '1. Whether erred held exhaustion administrative remedies required brought pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 '2. reversed judgments District McCray Burrell, #74-1042, and Smith, #74-1043, based finding Respondent McCray's Eighth Fourteenth Amendment rights violated under those cases remanded determinations merits.' Cert. 2-3. 11 Following certiorari, parties briefed orally argued these questions. result their efforts today's one-line order dismissing That plainly flouts settled principles govern unquestioned writs 12 We such dismissals proper only more intensive consideration issues attends full briefing argument reveals conditions originally thought justify granting fact present. '[C]ircumstances . 'not granted." Black Export, 723 (1959), may reveal important issue record, or sufficient clarity compel conclusion 'the standards governing our review upon [such as] 'special reasons' 19,' met. Rice Sioux City Cemetery, 349 70, 73, 75 614, 99 L.Ed. 897 (1955). See R. Stern & E. Gressman, Practice 227-230 (4th ed. 1969). No revealed plenary legal claims case; certainly neither nor suggested any. Nor explain action; rather, recognizing impossibility any attempt, simply orders dismissed. can conclude action—an which renders jurisdiction essentially arbitrary jurisdiction—the pursuing 'duty avoid decision constitutional issues' where reason principle doing so; instance 'avoidance becomes evasion.' supra, 74, 614. 13 Further, is, course, privileged participate justified standard. Ferguson Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 521, 559, 77 457, 511 (1957) (Harlan, J., concurring dissenting); Shannon, 342 288, 294, 72 281, 321 (1952). But hold view impermissible violence done Four participates that, here, standard, but rather reflects factors motivated original deny. U.S., 559-562, S.Ct., 478-480 dissenting). In circumstance, share stated Douglas, dissenting 298, 281: 14 'A position improvently Only privilege. strikes deep. If argument, impaired. By long practice—announced Congress well-known Bar—it takes four votes out nine certiorari. opposing five dismiss, then cannot get merits. four-vote rule be impaired.' 15 reach merits

Category: 8