436 F.Supp. 591 (W.D.Okl. 1977), CIV-77-0609, Coyle v. Hughs
|Citation:||436 F.Supp. 591|
|Party Name:||Ricky L. COYLE, Plaintiff, v. Mike HUGHS and Sam Fread, Defendants.|
|Case Date:||June 28, 1977|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 10th Circuit, Western District of Oklahoma|
Ricky L. Coyle, pro se.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants.
DAUGHERTY, Chief Judge.
Because it was accompanied by papers satisfying the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(a) the plaintiff has been permitted to file in forma pauperis his Complaint, but because it is frivolous and without color of merit the Complaint will be dismissed. See Redford v. Smith, 543 F.2d 726 (C.A.10 1976) and Oughton v. United States, 310 F.2d 803 (C.A.10 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 937, 83 S.Ct. 1542, 10 L.Ed.2d 693.
This is an action by a prisoner in the Lexington Regional Treatment Center, Lexington, Oklahoma, purportedly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he claims that the defendants acting under color of state law have deprived him of his constitutional rights in that he has been "subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by means of harassment."
The defendant, Mike Hughs, is a prison guard who allegedly has been harassing plaintiff "by giving me very dirty looks and verbal abuse, for the last three months, for no other good reason. He has since then given me a 'write-up' charging misconduct, for no other reason than harassment." He also alleges that in connection with the write-up this defendant "shook his hand in my face".
The defendant, Sam Fread, is a chief steward at the mess hall. He allegedly told the plaintiff when he went to work in the bakery that he didn't like him and when the plaintiff learned that he was going to be fired from the bakery he went to work in the laundry. Later the laundry supervisory had a heart attack and this defendant had to assume responsibility for the laundry also. He continues that "Mr. Fread then began talking bad to me and then finally
'wrote-me-up' for giving away a bag of rags, which was my understanding of the proper thing to do with rags. However, when I tried to explain this to Mr. Fread he said, 'shut up Coyle, if I wanted to hear anyone talk I'd buy a parrot'." He concludes that he was taken to disciplinary court where he was found not guilty but that the defendant would not let him have his job back "only because he does not like me".
Assuming that the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP