What and all that is in question here is whether the district judge erred in dismissing, on the ground put forward by him that the indictment did not charge a federal offense but in effect merely charged the defendant with violations of Florida law, Sec. 952.05, F.S.A., an indictment1 charging appellee with twenty-eight separate violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 242.2
*684The United States, appealing from the order, is here insisting that, in United States v. Jones, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 785, this court sustained as valid an information the same in form and substance, and that the decision in this case is controlled by that decision.
The appellee, vigorously disputing this contention, insists that the information in the Jones case contains essential allegations clearly spelling out the reason for the alleged assault, coupled with an allegation of specific intent to deny the alleged victim the benefit of a specific federal right, while the indictment here does not.
He insists further that the indictment, like the complaint, dealt with in this court’s decision in Yglesias v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 817, is deficient, in that it is based upon generalities and conclusions instead of upon specific factual allegations pointing to an intentional and deliberate denial of specific federal rights.
We do not think so. While the allegations of the information in the Jones case and of the indictment in this one are not verbally identical, they are in legal substance the same. We think it clear, therefore, that sufficiently to withstand a demurrer, or motion to dismiss, each •count of the indictment charged a federal offense within the scope and meaning of the section, and that it was error to dismiss the indictment.
Appellee’s reliance, therefore, on the fact that in the Jones case the information stated the reasons for the alleged assault and the indictment in this case did not, will not do, for in each case the offense consists, not in the reason given by, or charged against, the offender for the unlawful action, the wilful deprivation under the color of state law of rights secured to prisoners by the Federal Constitution, but in the fact of the deliberate and wilful deprivation of such rights by the officer under such color.
It was error to dismiss the indictment. The judgment is Reversed and the cause is Remanded with directions to proceed further and not inconsistently herewith.