United States v. Fay
| Citation | 197 F. Supp. 855 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. Dewey McDade THOMPSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. Edward M. FAY, Warden, Green Haven Prison, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1961 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
No attorneys.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for equitable relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Petitioner is incarcerated in Green Haven Prison, Stormville, N. Y., where he is serving a term of forty years to life. Sentence was imposed in 1941 by the Court of General Sessions, New York County, upon petitioner's plea of guilty to second degree murder.
The petition alleges that a proceeding for a reduction of sentence on the ground of petitioner's inadequate representation by court appointed counsel is now pending in the Appellate Courts of the State of New York. Petitioner complains here that the prison authorities have withheld a letter addressed to the United States Attorney General's Committee on Poverty and the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice asking for advice in connection with his pending state court proceeding. The pendency of state proceedings requires denial of the application insofar as it seeks a writ of habeas corpus for failure to show exhaustion of state remedies. 28 U.S. C.A. § 2254.
The question remains as to whether the petition states a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. Under that Act, a federal court may use its equity powers to grant relief where a petition shows that a person acting under color of law of any state subjects any person within the jurisdiction of the United States "to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws * * *." 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Prisoners lawfully confined to state penitentiaries have no absolute right to the use of the mails. As with many civil rights and privileges, this one yields to the internal discipline of a large prison. Price v. Johnston, 1948, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356; Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 483, 485; Numer v. Miller, 9 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 986; Gerrish v. State of Maine, D.C.S.D. Me.1950, 89 F.Supp. 244, 246; Reilly v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1945, 63 F.Supp. 477. Thus, the mere withholding of petitioner's letter by prison authorities is not a violation per se of any federal right. Nor is there any showing that the subject of the letter is of such a nature as to call for the exercise of equity powers to interfere with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Pingley v. Coiner
...U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L.Ed. 1268; United States ex rel. Cobb v. Maroney, (W.D., Penn.), 216 F.Supp. 910; United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, (S.D., N.Y.), 197 F.Supp. 855). In Rhem v. McGrath, (S.D.N.Y.), 326 F.Supp. 681, the court in discussing cruel and unusual punishment used thi......
-
Dugar v. Coughlin
...right of access to the courts includes a right to use the mails, this right is not absolute, see United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855, 856 (S.D.N.Y.1961), and it does not require that prisoners be provided with unlimited free postage. See, e.g., Bach v. Coughlin, 508 F.2d ......
-
Austin v. Harris
...necessary to the orderly conduct of the institution do not violate any constitutional rights of the convicts. United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay (S.D.N.Y.) 197 F.Supp. 855, l. c. 856; Petition of Smigelski (D.N.J.) 185 F. Supp. 283, l. c. 286-287; see also Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266......
-
Barone v. Warden, Manhattan House of Detention for Men
...Civil Rights Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1343; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Cf. Pierce v. La Vallee, 293 F.2d 233 (2 Cir. 1961); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961). Therefore, denial of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is without prejudice to petitioner's right to fi......
-
Censorship of Mail: the Prisoner's Right To Communicate By Mail With the Outside World
...correspondence are incidentsinherent in the conduct of a penal institution. Lee v. Tahash, supra; United States ex rel Thompson v. Fay 197 F. Supp. 855 (D. C. NY1961). But, save for an exceptional circumstance, i.e., conduct shocks the conscience, the courts will not interfere with the cond......