Bowman v. Hale
| Decision Date | 11 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 5520-69-P. |
| Citation | 302 F. Supp. 1306 |
| Parties | John BOWMAN, Petitioner, v. N. L. HALE, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
John Bowman, pro se.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., State of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala., for respondent.
On May 28, 1969, petitioner, a prisoner at Atmore Prison, Atmore, Alabama, filed a petition for a $500,000 law suit alleging, generally, cruel and unusual punishment and criminal negligence. The court will construe this as a petition for a civil action under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983.
More specifically, petitioner alleges the following as grounds for the suit:
(8) A general allegation that petitioner's life "is in constant danger."
As to petitioner's first ground, it has been held that this allegation does not allege deprivation of such rights as are cognizable under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983. Com. of Pa. ex rel. Gatewood v. Hendrick, Superintendent, 368 F.2d 179, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 899, 17 L.Ed.2d 797 (3rd Cir., 1966).
Petitioner's second ground, dealing with negligent destruction of his personal property sets out a simple common law offense for which complete relief is readily available under State law. Urbano v. Calissi, 384 F.2d 909 (3rd Cir., 1967).
Grounds 3 through 7 inclusive deal with matters of prison administration, and it is well settled that absent exceptional circumstances, the federal courts will not inquire into such matters. U. S. ex rel. Ragen v. Knight, 337 F.2d 425, cert. denied, 14 L.Ed.2d 277 (7th Cir., 1964). However, the court wants the record to reflect that many complaints similar to those in grounds 3 through 7 were the subject of an agreement worked out between Atmore Prison authorities and complaining inmates, in the nature of a consent judgment, in the case of Willie Beard v. Lee, in Civil Action No. 4345, of which a copy is appended.
As to petitioner's eighth ground, which is a general allegation that his life "is in constant danger," the petitioner does allege specific facts to support his allegation. Assuming petitioner is complaining of an assault, or an assault and battery, a tort committed by a State official, acting under color of law is not, in and of itself, sufficient to show an invasion of a person's rights under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Kent v. Prasse, 385 F.2d 406 (3rd Cir., 1967).
Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition for a $500,000 law suit is, and the same is, hereby denied.
APPENDIX
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIE BEARD, | Petitioner, | V. | A. F. LEE, Commissioner of the Board | CIVIL ACTION of Corrections, State of Alabama, N. L. > No. 4345-66 HALE, Warden, Atmore Prison, and | BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, State of | Alabama, | Respondents. |
ORDER AND DECREE
The petitioner, Willie Beard, filed a petition in this court for relief under the Civil Rights Statutes, Title 42, Sections 1981, etc., U.S.C. He requested to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, the request was granted, and John W. Coleman, attorney at law, Mobile, Alabama, was appointed November 9, 1968, to represent him.
A pretrial was had with the petitioner, his attorney, and attorneys for the defendants all present on November 25, 1968. All averments of racial discrimination were stricken. Petitioner was granted leave to file an amended petition, which was done on December 3, 1968, and sought relief for himself and other inmates at the Alabama State Prison, Atmore, Alabama, averring conditions principally connected with solitary confinement and alleging cruel and unusual punishment in violation to Amendment 8 of the Constitution of the United States.
The defendants filed an answer, in effect the (1) general denial, (2) the complaints are purely matters of prison discipline and not for the courts, and (3) that the allegations do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
On the 23rd day of January 1969, the petitioner, his attorney of record, the defendants, and their attorneys of record, together with witnesses subpoenaed, were present and ready for a hearing before the court.
The petitioner and his attorney of record, together with the defendants and their attorneys of record, entered into an agreement for a consent judgment enjoining the defendant from failing to do the things set out in Appendix A of this decree, which is incorporated and made an integral part of this decree.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that by consent of the parties the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Pa. ex rel. Feiling v. Sincavage
...F.2d 406 (3d Cir. 1967); Urbano v. Calissi, 384 F.2d 909 (3d Cir. 1967); Ream v. Handley, 359 F.2d 728 (7th Cir. 1966); Bowman v. Hale, 302 F.Supp. 1306 (S.D.Ala.1969); Johnson v. Hackett, 284 F.Supp. 933 (E.D.Pa. 1968); Travers v. Paton, 261 F.Supp. 110 ...
-
Goode v. Hartman, Civ. A. No. 74-0302-R.
...of Pennsylvania, 413 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 278, 24 L.Ed.2d 234 (1969). Accord, Bowman v. Hale, 302 F.Supp. 1306 (S.D.Ala.1969). Mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment does not raise a section 1983 action. Church v. Hegstron, 416 F......
-
Howard v. Swenson, 20136.
...S.D.1968), aff'd sub nom., Kimble v. Department of Corrections, State of Michigan, 411 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1969); Bowman v. Hale, 302 F.Supp. 1306 (S.D.Alabama, S.D.1969). At best appellant's complaint resulted from enforcement of a prison Finding absolutely no merit in appellant's case, we ......
-
Bishop v. Cox, Civ. A. No. 70-C-32-H.
...of Pennsylvania, 413 F.2d 88 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 935, 90 S.Ct. 278, 24 L. Ed.2d 234 (1969). Accord, Bowman v. Hale, 302 F.Supp. 1306 (S.D.Ala.1969). Mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment does not raise a section 1983 action. Church v. Hegstron, 416 F......