407 F.2d 937 (3rd Cir. 1969), 17364, Ford v. Board of Managers of New Jersey State Prison

Docket Nº17364-17366.
Citation407 F.2d 937
Party NameRussell FORD v. The BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON; Lloyd W. McCorkle, Commissioner of Institutions & Agencies of the State of New Jersey; and Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, New Jersey. Russell Ford, Appellant in No. 17364, Dennis E. Gilyard, No. 38937, Appellant in No. 17365, and George
Case DateFebruary 12, 1969
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 937

407 F.2d 937 (3rd Cir. 1969)

Russell FORD

v.

The BOARD OF MANAGERS OF the NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON; Lloyd W. McCorkle, Commissioner of Institutions & Agencies of the State of New Jersey; and Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, New Jersey.

Russell Ford, Appellant in No. 17364, Dennis E. Gilyard, No. 38937, Appellant in No. 17365, and George C. Riley, No. 44439, Appellant in No. 17366.

Nos. 17364-17366.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

February 12, 1969

Submitted on Briefs Jan. 6, 1969.

Page 938

Appellant in 17364: Russell Ford, pro se.

Appellant in 17365: Dennis E. Gilyard, pro se.

Appellant in 17366: George C. Riley, pro se.

Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Institutions and Agencies, Trenton, N.J., for appellees (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, on the brief).

Before BIGGS, FORMAN and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Russell Ford, at the time an inmate of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton 1 brought this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 2 and 1983 3 alleging that the named defendants, the Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison, Lloyd McCorkle, Commissioner of Institutions & Agencies of the State of New Jersey and Howard Yeager, Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton, were subjecting him and other state prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The suit was denominated in the complaint as a class action brought on behalf of all New Jersey prisoners similarly situated, presumably on the theory that they are exposed to like deprivations associated with solitary confinement. The complaint sought declaratory and

Page 939

injunctive relief as well as certain reforms in the practices attendant upon the administration of solitary confinement.

More particularly, appellant Ford alleged that he had been confined in solitary from August 26 to August 31, 1967, as well as on previous occasion, in Wing 1-Left of the New Jersey State Prison at Trenton. While so situated, he was allegedly compelled to exist under the conditions set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the complaint:

'9. None of the Solitary confinement cells have wash bowls or running water nor is water for sanitary purposes provided so that plaintiff, during as well as on previous occasions, in Wing unable to wash before eating or to maintain himself hygenically in any way. Since a shower is permitted only every fifth day, at the caprice of the officer in charge who being poorly supervised is often too lazy to attend to these matters, plaintiff did not receive a shower. Neither was the cell itself cleaned and at all times there is a pervasive stench. An old mattress with a clean cover on a cement shelf is provided for bedding.

'10. While confined solitarily * * * plaintiff was permitted 4 slices of bread and a pint of water 3 times daily...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP