610 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1980), 77-2125, Lynott v. Henderson
|Citation:||610 F.2d 340|
|Party Name:||Jay LYNOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. D. HENDERSON, Warden, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||January 25, 1980|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Frank P. Samford, III, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for plaintiff-appellant.
William E. Turnipseed, Douglas P. Roberto, Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, RONEY and FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., Circuit Judges.
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:
In 1973, appellant Lynott, a prisoner incarcerated in the federal prison at Atlanta, Georgia, sued federal prison officials alleging that they had violated his constitutional rights, largely by discriminatory application of the prison's visitation regulations in refusing to permit him visits by Nan Bornstein, Jacqueline Miranda, Mr. and Mrs. Albert Dodenhoff, and Carol Roth, among others. He sought various sorts of relief,
including declaratory judgments, injunctions, compensatory visits, and damages.
The complaint was initially dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies available within the prison. Lynott subsequently pursued these remedies only with regard to his request to visit with Nan Bornstein. After the prison officials reaffirmed their decision, the district court permitted Lynott to proceed with his complaint but only as to his claims regarding Nan Bornstein.
Lynott moved for and was denied a temporary restraining order to enable him to be visited by Ms. Bornstein. The defendants moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, relying heavily on several unsworn statements submitted by the defendants. Lynott appealed. In an unpublished decision we remanded for further proceedings. Lynott v. Henderson, No. 75-1601 (CA5, Nov. 28, 1975).
On remand, the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, submitting affidavits and documents to support their decision to exclude Nan Bornstein from the prison. These documents showed that in her original application to visit Lynott she stated that her relationship with Lynott was "friend k" and that she had met him by "love at first sight beach". Also she did not correct an entry that showed inaccurately that she was single. The defendants also provided letters from Nan Bornstein's husband to the prison officials initially asking them to terminate his wife's visitation privileges, and later reluctantly asking them to reinstate her privileges. Prison officials also stated that the husband had orally threatened to sue them if they permitted his wife to see Lynott, and that when Nan Bornstein was informed of the revocation of her visiting privileges, she cursed, became verbally abusive with one of the prison personnel, and kicked in a glass panel by the front door of the prison. Finally, the defendants submitted copies of forms sent to Lynott giving him notice when Ms. Bornstein was added to and removed from his visitation list.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP