Cupp v. Swenson

• Decision Date: 16 July 1968
• Docket Number: 1203,1139,1273,1248,1223,1182,1250,1243,1292,1151,1275,No. 1120,1163,1333.,1215,1198,1120
• Citation: 288 F. Supp. 1
• Parties: Charles CUPP v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden. Michael Henry JAEGER v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Michael A. JANSEN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Clarence Richard BOSLER v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Frank HOWARD v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Julian SWAIN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. James D. WRAY v. Guard Lt. DENNICE et al. Earl L. EMERY v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Bobby Lee GRIFFIN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden. Billy J. TYLER v. F. T. WILKINSON et al. Patrick Lee MOONEY v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Russell Eugene BRIDDLE v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden. Guy Fredric BROWN v. Fred T. WILKINSON et al. John Thomas FERGUSON v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al. Merle R. WINFORD v. WILKINSON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

288 F. Supp. 1

Charles CUPP v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden.

Michael Henry JAEGER v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Michael A. JANSEN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Clarence Richard BOSLER v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Frank HOWARD v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Julian SWAIN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

James D. WRAY v. Guard Lt. DENNICE et al.

Earl L. EMERY v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Bobby Lee GRIFFIN v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden.

Billy J. TYLER v. F. T. WILKINSON et al.

Patrick Lee MOONEY v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Russell Eugene BRIDDLE v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden.

Guy Fredric BROWN v. Fred T. WILKINSON et al.

John Thomas FERGUSON v. Harold R. SWENSON, Warden, et al.

Merle R. WINFORD v. WILKINSON et al.

Nos. 1120, 1139, 1151, 1163, 1182, 1198, 1203, 1215, 1223, 1243, 1248, 1250, 1273, 1275, 1292, 1333.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, Central Division.

July 16, 1968.

Alex Bartlett, Jefferson City, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Norman A. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Howard L. McFadden, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Mo., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN W. OLIVER, District Judge.

The above entitled cases are all civil actions involving complaints by inmates at the Missouri State Penitentiary about treatment allegedly violating plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights by the administration and employees of the Department of Corrections. Some of the complaints seek damages, but most seek relief in equity or habeas corpus.

As these cases were filed, we stayed the proceedings in each until the Court had heard and decided several cases of a similar nature involving other inmates at the Missouri State Penitentiary.

Since the filing of all these cases the Department of Corrections for the State of Missouri has made some drastic and progressive changes in its rules and regulations affecting the administration and control of inmates. Many of these changes are in areas about which particular plaintiffs have alleged violations of their federally protected constitutional rights.

The new rules and regulations contain a Grievance Procedure under which any inmate at the Missouri State Penitentiary may present grievances to higher administrative officials for determination. The Inmate Informational Pamphlet, Rules and Procedures, September, 1967, MSP, states:

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES:

It is anticipated most problems, complaints or grievances will be resolved by personal or written contact with officials and offices outlined in the Procedural Guide to Assist Inmates.

If this is not the case, and in order to insure exhaustion of internal administrative procedures, the inmate making appeal shall appeal to his caseworker in writing by clearly showing offices and personnel contacted and answers received.

The caseworker will arrange to carefully stamp date of receipt of complaint and deal with the problem in writing or by interview as soon as possible.

If the caseworker is unable to resolve the problem he thinks need further attention, he shall refer it to proper higher official, Board or Committee for further consideration.

An appropriate written record shall be made in connection with each action taken by higher officials or Committees.

The Personnel Informational Pamphlet, Rules and Procedures, September, 1967, MSP, details how lower echelon personnel at the penitentiary are to handle grievances presented by inmates.

While we understand that plaintiffs have alleged the violation of federal constitutional rights, we have decided to dismiss the complaints without prejudice in order that plaintiffs, if they so desire, may present their particular claims through the grievance procedure established by the Department of Corrections.

Apart from avoidance of the question presented by a failure of a particular plaintiff to afford defendants an opportunity to correct any alleged violation of a federally protected constitutional right, we believe there are equally valid reasons to require that all parties make use of the Grievance Procedures established by the new rules.

It is clear that no court has jurisdictional power, inclination, time, or expertize to administer the normal disciplinary problems of the Missouri State Penitentiary. Such is clearly the ordinary business of the administration and employees of the Department of Corrections, subject only, so far as this Court is concerned, to the standards required by the Constitution of the United States. The only legitimate forma pauperis invocation of this Court's jurisdiction can be made pursuant to the exercise of its discretion under Section 1915, Title 28, United States Code, in a case in which an inmate alleges that a federally protected constitutional right has been or is presently being violated by an employee of the Department of Corrections acting under...