404 F.2d 1380 (3rd Cir. 1968), 17115, Wilson v. Prasse

Docket Nº:17115.
Citation:404 F.2d 1380
Party Name:Perley WILSON, Appellant, v. Arthur T. PRASSE, Commissioner of Correction, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, James F. Maroney, Superintendent, Norbert E. Welch, Deputy Superintendent, William C. Schnupp, Notary Public, State CorrectionalInstitution,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Case Date:December 16, 1968
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1380

404 F.2d 1380 (3rd Cir. 1968)

Perley WILSON, Appellant,

v.

Arthur T. PRASSE, Commissioner of Correction, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, James F. Maroney, Superintendent, Norbert E. Welch, Deputy Superintendent, William C. Schnupp, Notary Public, State CorrectionalInstitution,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

No. 17115.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

December 16, 1968

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 10, 1968.

Page 1381

Perley Wilson, pro se.

Frank P. Lawley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa. (William C. Sennett, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on appeal by a state prisoner from a District Court order dismissing his action under the Civil Rights Acts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-3 and 1985(3)) seeking (1) and injunction to restrain the Commissioner of Corrections and certain prison officials of the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh from denying (a) his right to exercise his religious belief, and (b) his right of access to the courts, and (2) actual and punitive damages for such alleged denials of his civil rights. 1

Insofar as appellant complains of alleged denial of his right of access to the courts, the record shows that the many civil actions instituted by appellant in the federal and state courts supported the conclusion of the District Court that the contention that appellant had been denied access to the courts was frivolous. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

The allegations on page 4 of plaintiff's Complaint that he was denied permission to exercise his religious beliefs in any manner, giving specific examples of such denial, 3 state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, of which the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. See Cooper v. Pate, Warden, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964) .

Page 1382

Under these circumstances, the order of the District Court, dismissing the action, will be vacated and the case will be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.


Notes:

[1] The May 18, 1967, order of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (#9792), transferring this action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), was clearly proper for the reasons stated in the Memorandum filed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP