Stuart v. Heard, Civ. A. No. 73-H-243.
| Citation | 359 F. Supp. 921 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 73-H-243. |
| Parties | Joseph Elliot STUART, Jr., Individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jack HEARD, Sheriff of Harris County, Texas, and John Hill, Attorney General of Texas, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Joseph E. Stuart, Jr., pro se.
John Hill, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Calvin Botley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., and Carol Vance, Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER:
This is a suit by an inmate of the Harris County Rehabilitation Center on behalf of all persons confined in the Center and in the Harris County Jail in downtown Houston, Texas, for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Sheriff of Harris County, Jack Heard, and the Texas Attorney General, John Hill, for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3), 2201 and 2202. The Defendants have filed a multifaceted Motion to Dismiss, and subject thereto, an Answer.
The Plaintiff complains that the Harris County prisoners confined at the jail and the Rehabilitation Center are discriminated against by their keepers in the following particulars:
The Plaintiff requests the convening of a three judge court to consider the complaint and to declare Article 5115, V.A.T.S., to be unconstitutional; to enjoin its enforcement; and to provide for visiting areas for conjugal visits between the inmates and their spouses or companions of the opposite sex; and to provide for two-person cells to accommodate legally married or common law couples who are jointly confined awaiting trial, pending appeal, or serving sentences.
The Defendants have filed a motion setting forth four grounds for dismissal: (1) improper joinder, (2) failure to state a claim, (3) improper class action, (4) lack of jurisdiction. A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction of any complaint by a state prisoner against his jailors for any alleged mistreatment or deprivation. See, Andrade v. Hauck, 452 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1971). The complaint in this case is sufficient to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. However, that is not enough to save it from dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P.1
Stuart complains that he is segregated from female prisoners and deprived of both the opportunity and facilities for conjugal relationships, that is, intimate sexual relations including intercourse, with them or with female visitors.2
Sexual relations and the law have a long common history. The earliest of legal codes, Hammurabi's (circa 1700 B. C.) and Moses' (circa 1500 B.C.) contain provisions regulating the marital relationship. Moses' terse Sixth Commandment to the Hebrews is well known: "You shall not commit adultery." Exodus, 20:14. Articles 499-502 of the Vernon's Ann.Texas Penal Code contain the modern version of the prohibition. In Texas, as in other jurisdictions both now and in the past, fornication and rape are punishable offenses.3 In times gone by sexual relations were recognized as legally protected rights incident to the ownership of land. In feudal England one form was known as "pimp-tenure." As distinguished from serjeant's or knight's tenure where the tenant held the land by rendering military service to his lord, a tenant holding under "pimp-tenure" was obliged to provide young women for his lord's use and pleasure. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (3rd Rev.), Vol. II, p. 2593, citing Statute 12 Edw. 1, which condemned the practice. Another form was "droit du seigneur," also known as jus primae noctis (right of the first night). This was a feudal right said to have existed in medieval Europe giving to the lord of the manor to whom it belonged the right to sleep the first night with the bride of any one of his vassals. It is believed to have existed only in France and Italy, and then only for a short time in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. 7, p. 697 (1973). The right was immortalized by the French statesman and dramatist Beaumarchais in his Marriage of Figaro (1778). The hoped-for exercise of the droit du seigneur is the focal point of the play, and of Mozart's opera based upon the play.
These peculiar incidents of feudal tenure have long since vanished. The question presented here is whether the company of the opposite sex and the opportunity for conjugal relations is a right incident to the being of an incarcerated person, the deprivation of which is cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Similar claims were rejected by the courts in Tarlton v. Cark, 441 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1971) and Payne v. District of Columbia, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 345, 253 F.2d 867 (1958). Recently the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied relief to a state prisoner who complained inter alia that the state's denial of conjugal visits and the employment of female guards enflamed passions and was therefore cruel and unusual punishment. The Court found the claims to be frivolous and, relying upon Payne, held that the complaint did not state claims upon which relief could be granted. Brown v. Gillman, Civil No....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Coughlin
...934, 91 S.Ct. 2263, 29 L.Ed.2d 713; Payne v. District of Columbia, D.C.Cir., 253 F.2d 867; Lyons v. Gilligan, 382 F.Supp. 198; Stuart v. Heard, 359 F.Supp. 921; see generally, Annotation, State Regulation of Conjugal or Overnight Familial Visits in Penal or Correctional Institutions, 29 ALR......
-
Lyons v. Gilligan
...the failure to provide for marital relations in prison not to be a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. In Stuart v. Heard, 359 F.Supp. 921 (S.D.Tex.1973) the court held that segregating prisoners by sex and not providing facilities for marital visits did not constitute cruel a......
-
Doe v. Coughlin
...in the privacy of their own home, that right has been abrogated during petitioner John Doe's period of incarceration (Stuart v. Heard, 359 F.Supp. 921). Similarly, participation is not mandated by any Equal Protection argument (Cordero v. Coughlin, 607 F.Supp. 9, 10 [S.D.N.Y.1984]. Finally,......
-
DOUG SANDERS GOLF, ETC. v. American Manhattan Ind., Inc.
... ... AMERICAN MANHATTAN INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants ... Civ. A. No. 71-C-638 ... United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin ... ...
-
Lyons v. Gilligan
...did not have a constitutional entitlement to conjugal visits or sexual intimacies with their spouse. The cases included Stuart v. Heard (359 F.Supp. 921, S.D. Tex. 1973), Tarlton v. Clark (441 F.2d 384, 1971), and Payne v. District of Columbia (253 F.2d 867, D.C. Cir. 1958). In these cases,......