Graham v. Willingham
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 9470.,9470. |
| Citation | 384 F.2d 367 |
| Parties | Kenneth GRAHAM, Appellant, v. J. T. WILLINGHAM, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Jack S. Ramirez, Wichita, Kan., for appellant.
James R. Ward, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before LEWIS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is presently confined in the United States Penitentiary of Leavenworth, Kansas, serving a sentence lawfully imposed after conviction for the offense of murder in the second degree. By petition presented to the District Court for the District of Kansas he alleged that he was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment because of prolonged and unreasonable segregated confinement in the maximum security facilities at Leavenworth. After a full evidentiary hearing at which both the appellant and the Chief Correctional Officer testified, the trial court denied relief. We affirm.
The basic responsibility for the control and management of penal institutions, including the discipline, treatment and care of those confined, lies with the Attorney General and is not subject to judicial review unless exercised in such a manner as to constitute clear arbitrariness or caprice upon the part of prison officials. Cannon v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 358 F.2d 719 and cases cited. Segregation, as such, is not a cruel nor unusual treatment, punishment or practice. Kostal v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 337 F.2d 845.
Appellant is not presently in segregation as a disciplinary control for specific misconduct but as an administrative control relating to inmates considered to be a "threat to themselves, to others, or to the safety and security of the institution." Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement, #7400.4, issued 9-9-66. Such a policy is perfectly proper and lawful and its administration requires the highest degree of expertise in the discretionary function of balancing the security of the prison with fairness to the individuals confined. In the case at bar the record reveals that appellant's confinement in segregation is the result of the considered judgment of the prison authorities and is not arbitrary.
Appellant has, indeed, been in segregation for a protracted period, continuously for more than two years prior to the present hearing. However, his record during three separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Lamm
...unless exercised in such a manner as to constitute clear abuse or caprice upon the part of prison officials. See Graham v. Willingham, 384 F.2d 367 (10th Cir. 1967). Also see Banning v. Looney, 213 F.2d 771 (10th Cir. 1954); Powell v. Hunter, 172 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1949). But being fully c......
-
United States ex rel. Hoss v. Cuyler
...for specific misconduct, the degree of deference to administrative judgment has been great indeed. For example, in Graham v. Willingham, 384 F.2d 367 (10th Cir.), aff'g, 265 F.Supp. 763 (D.Kan.1967), a case very similar to this one, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected the cr......
-
Anderson v. Nosser
...Solitary confinement for the purpose of achieving such goals is not per se an unconstitutional form of punishment. Graham v. Willingham, supra, 384 F.2d 367, (10 Cir.). However, the Court is of the opinion that such goals can be attained without requiring a prisoner to live in the exacerbat......
-
Sands v. Wainwright
...1971); Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771, 777 (8th Cir. 1970); Courtney v. Bishop, 409 F.2d 1185, 1187 (8th Cir. 1969); Graham v. Willingham, 384 F.2d 367, 368 (10th Cir. 1967); cf. Young v. Wainwright, 449 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1971), that incarceration brings about a necessary withdrawal of man......