Bethea v. Daggett, Civ. A. No. 13845.

• Decision Date: 06 November 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 13845.
• Citation: 329 F. Supp. 796
• Parties: Joseph X. BETHEA v. Mr. DAGGETT, Acting Warden.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

329 F. Supp. 796

Joseph X. BETHEA v. Mr. DAGGETT, Acting Warden.

Civ. A. No. 13845.

United States District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

November 6, 1970.

Joseph X. Bethea, pro se.

John Stokes, U. S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U. S. Atty., for respondent.

ORDER

ALBERT J. HENDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, moves the court to grant his application for a writ of mandamus directing the warden of the federal penitentiary to permit petitioner the free exercise of his religious beliefs. In answer thereto, the government has filed its response to the court's order to show cause, and petitioner has filed with the court his traverse to the government's response.

This circuit long ago recognized that prisoners do not forfeit their constitutional rights merely because they have been incarcerated. Tabor v. Hardwick, 224 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1955); see Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948); Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233 (2nd Cir. 1961). With regard to the rights of Black Muslims in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, it is beyond question that arbitrary discrimination based upon the religious or racial beliefs of those concerned is constitutionally impermissible. But rules and regulations are constitutionally valid when they are reasonable and justifiable in the administration of a large prison population, in light of the necessity to maintain prison discipline, and control any dangers and hazards presented. Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F. 2d 23 (5th Cir. 1969); see Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968).

Petitioner, in the case at bar, alleges that the prison authorities have refused to permit him to pray five times daily, and have placed him in segregation for attempting to do so; that the prison officials do not provide the Black Muslims office space to the same extent as that provided for Catholic, Protestant and Jewish inmates; that the prison administration will not employ a Muslim as clerk in the religious offices; and, finally, that the respondent has not provided petitioner with the same religious attire supplied prisoners of other faiths. In light of the principles enunciated in the above cases and the actual facts as they appear in the case at bar, the court finds petitioner's contentions to be wholly without merit.

The guiding standard by which the practices of the penitentiary must be judged is the one stated in Jackson, supra at 541, requiring the government to show some substantial and controlling interest when subordination or limitation of constitutional rights is in question. The court, however, does not reach the application of the above test, because of the court's finding that the facts do not substantiate petitioner's contention that he has been denied his constititutional rights in the free exercise of his religious beliefs.

First, petitioner contends that he is not permitted the right to pray five times daily, and that on one ocasion when he and others were gathered together for the purpose of conducting a prayer session, he was placed in segregation for his attempts in this regard. The true reasons behind petitioner's being placed in segregation, however, are (1) that petitioner and eight...