Abbott v. Petrovsky, 83-1571

• Decision Date: 23 September 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-1571,83-1571
• Citation: 717 F.2d 1191
• Parties: Jack H. ABBOTT, Appellant, v. Joseph S. PETROVSKY, Warden of the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Norman Carlson, Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1191

717 F.2d 1191

Jack H. ABBOTT, Appellant, v. Joseph S. PETROVSKY, Warden of the United States Medical

Center for Federal Prisoners, Norman Carlson,

Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons,

et al, Appellees.

No. 83-1571.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 16, 1983.

Decided Sept. 23, 1983.

Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Federal Public Defender, W.D. Mo., Gregory K. Johnson, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.

Robert G. Ulrich, U.S. Atty., Michael A. Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for appellees; Bill Burlington, Atty. Advisor, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Mo., of counsel.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jack H. Abbott filed this lawsuit in an attempt to prevent his transfer from the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, to the federal prison at Marion, Illinois. He also sought to force the government to place him in the federal witness protection program. An extensive hearing was held before a magistrate, who recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The district court ¹ followed the magistrate's recommendation, and Abbott appeals. We affirm.

Abbott is well known as a government informant. In 1980, when he was incarcerated at Marion, he gave a deposition to an Assistant United States Attorney detailing illegal inmate activities. This deposition was later made public, and Abbott was questioned about it on national television. Abbott has also received extensive publicity as the author of a book criticizing the American prison system, and as a result of his parole and subsequent conviction for manslaughter. Abbott has been a plaintiff in a number of civil rights lawsuits.

Abbott contends that as a result of the extensive publicity surrounding his activities as an informant, he is a prime target for murder at Marion. He also claims that as a result of his lawsuits and his criticism of prison guards, the guards at Marion are likely to injure him. Abbott claims that such a transfer would violate the eighth amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

The government concedes that Abbott is a special security risk. The government decided that Abbott would be safest at the "K-Unit" at Marion. The security in the K-Unit is higher than that at any unit at any other federal prison. Abbott will be totally segregated from other inmates, and his cell can only be opened from another part of the prison. The government asserts that the Marion K-Unit will provide Abbott the maximum protection available.

In order to show an eighth amendment violation, Abbott must demonstrate that the decision to transfer him was made with deliberate indifference to the possibility of violent attacks by inmates or guards. Branchcomb v. Brewer, 669 F.2d 1297, 1298 (8th Cir.1982). A review of the record shows that the prison officials involved have recognized Abbott's special security needs, given extensive thought to where Abbott would be safest, and prepared a special cell for him to protect him from attacks from prison guards. Alternatives are limited, and Abbott himself has conceded that, even with a name change, he would be recognizable in any prison in the country because of the extensive publicity. In view of the difficulties involved in keeping Abbott safe from harm, we cannot say that the decision by the Bureau of Prisons is unreasonable.

We are not indifferent to Abbott's claims that Marion poses special dangers for him. At this point, however, we cannot say that his incarceration at Marion is...