Haines v. Kerner, 17511.
| Citation | 427 F.2d 71 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 17511.,17511. |
| Parties | Francis HAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otto J. KERNER, Former Governor, State of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois; Ross V. Randolph, Director of Public Safety, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois; Max P. Frye, Warden, Lewis C. Lence, Assistant Warden, Jeffie Biggs, Assistant Warden, Paul V. Sympson, Senior Guard Captain, Russell Lence, Guard Captain, E. Rogers, Guard Lieutenant, Donald Gentsch, Record Clerk, William Sheets, Commissary Officer, Paul T. Duncan, Guard, all of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois 62259, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Francis Haines, in pro, per.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellees; James R. Thompson, Joel M. Flaum, Thomas J. Immel, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel.
Before KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge, FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge, and GRANT,* District Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Francis Haines, brought suit in the United States District Court, pursuant to the Civil Rights statutes, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in forma pauperis, to recover a total of $500,000 as damages for deprivation of his rights, under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 (2).
Plaintiff's Complaint states that he is confined in the Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard, Illinois. He describes the defendants as officers and employees of the State of Illinois and as conspiring among themselves and with others, directly or through agents, to deny Plaintiff his Constitutional rights, principally, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments and not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.
As Plaintiff, in his brief, describes the incident out of which this action arose, he was engaged in an argument with two other inmates in the course of which he struck one with a shovel. He states that he refused to explain his action or to discuss the incident with the investigating prison authorities, as a result of which he was placed in solitary confinement for a period of fifteen days. Plaintiff says he is 66 years of age and has a foot disability discernable by X-ray for which he was awarded compensation in a hearing before the Illinois Industrial Commission. He found solitary confinement with its attendant rigorous conditions particularly onerous, and he considers it to be cruel and unusual punishment improperly imposed without a court trial. He was also classified as "C" under the Progressive Merit System, which he explains in his Complaint indicated unsatisfactory behavior and entailed a loss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beishir v. Swenson
...are violated. See: Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1970); Howard v. Swenson, 426 F. 2d 277 (8th Cir. 1970); Haines v. Kerner, 427 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1970); Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir., 1971). That federal jurisdiction is founded on a deprivation is apparent from an examin......
-
Matthews v. Rakiey
...in penology could exacerbate disciplinary problems. See McCloskey v. Maryland, 337 F.2d 72, 74 (4th Cir.1964); Haines v. Kerner, 427 F.2d 71, 72-73 (7th Cir.1970). See Hirschkop, The Rights of Prisoners, in The Rights of Americans 455 (Dorsen ed. 1971). In short, neither the language of the......
-
Wheeler v. Glass
...have been raised have also been held erroneous in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), reversing 427 F.2d 71 (7th Cir. 1970); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1202, 28 L. Ed.2d 335 (1971); Sinclair v. Hend......
-
People ex rel. Willis v. Department of Corrections
...and concluding that petitioner had failed to show a deprivation of federally protected rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 427 F.2d 71, emphasizing that prison officials are vested with 'wide discretion' in disciplinary matters. We granted certiorari and appointed counsel to represent pe......