Cruz v. Beto, 71-1613. Summary Calendar.
Citation | 445 F.2d 801 |
Decision Date | 15 July 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 71-1613. Summary Calendar.,71-1613. Summary Calendar. |
Parties | Fred A. CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Lonnie W. Duke, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner-appellant; Rivera & Ritter, San Antonio, Tex., of counsel.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Tex., Gilbert J. Pena, Larry J. Craddock, Asst. Attys. Gen., Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred Walker, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert C. Flowers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.
Before WISDOM,1 COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Fred Arispe Cruz is an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections. Alleging jurisdiction under Title 28, U. S.C., Section 1343, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983, and Title 28, U.S.C., Section 2201, Cruz brought this suit against Dr. Beto, the Director of the Texas Department of Corrections, in the federal district court2 seeking injunctive, pecuniary, and declaratory relief with regard to certain alleged practices and policies of the Department of Corrections which were claimed to deprive Cruz and other inmates similarly situated of rights guaranteed under the federal constitution.
The complaint alleged:
1. The officials of the Texas Department of Corrections were obstructing Cruz's efforts to adhere to the tenets of his religious faith, Buddhism, and were refusing to permit Cruz and other imprisoned Buddhists to use the prison chapel and similar facilities for the practice of Buddhism, even though the prison authorities were actively encouraging the observance of Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Protestant rituals and practices among the prison population;
2. The officials of the Texas Department of Corrections were denying Cruz and others similarly situated their rights to full and adequate access to the courts by limiting and restricting each inmate's legal research activities to two hours a day, six days a week; and
3. The officials of the Texas Department of Corrections were depriving Cruz and other members of his class of their First Amendment right to stay informed on the state of local and national affairs by denying them access to radio, television, newspapers, and magazines during the times they were put in isolation or in solitary confinement for disciplinary reasons.
The lower court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling that Cruz's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Cruz...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cruz v. Beto 8212 5552
...reasons not known to this court may prevent the 'equality' of exercise of religious practices in prison.' The Court of Appeals affirmed. 445 F.2d 801. Federal courts sit not to supervise prisons but to enforce the constitutional rights of all 'persons,' including prisoners. We are not unmin......
-
Novak v. Beto
...See Sostre v. McGinnis, supra, at 193, note 22. 4 Appellant Cruz is not a stranger to this Court. See, e. g., Cruz v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 801. 5 See note 1 6 The limits of our ability to police the prisons manifests itself in various ways. One, of course, is the fact that prison r......
-
Theriault v. Carlson
...as certain other sects which, after conclusive legal battles, must now be "recognized" by the prison authorities. E. g., Cruz v. Beto, 445 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1971), vacated and remanded per curiam, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972); Cooper v. Pate, 324 F.2d 165 (7th Cir. 19......
-
Guajardo v. McAdams, Civ. A. No. 71-H-570
...in the Texas Department of Corrections prison libraries has been held adequate. Cruz v. Beto, 329 F.Supp. 443 (S.D. Tex.), aff'd 445 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1971). The prisoners' complaints relating to the mails can be divided into two general categories: (1) special mailings and (2) general mai......