Burns v. Wilkinson, Civ. A. No. 1731.
Decision Date | 16 August 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1731. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Parties | Robert E. BURNS, Petitioner, v. F. T. WILKINSON, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections, Jefferson City, Missouri, et al., Respondents. |
Robert E. Burns, pro se.
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND JUDGMENT DISMISSING "PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ADEQUATE STATE REMEDIES
Petitioner, a state convict confined in the Missouri State Penitentiary, has submitted in this Court a "petition for injunctive relief and other appropriate relief" in which he founds jurisdiction of the federal court on the Federal Civil Rights Act, § 1983 and § 1985, Title 42, United States Code. Jurisdiction is proper under § 1343(3) and (4), Title 28, United States Code. Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Petitioner states the following as grounds for his contention that the conditions of his confinement in the Missouri State Penitentiary violate his federal rights:
"* * * that petitioner's Constitutional rights have been threatened and violated by an attempt to abridge the freedom of speech, deny the right to petition government and of access to the courts, by the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, the denial of due process of the laws, the equal protection of the laws, the equal privileges and immunities of the laws, entitling him to relief under the Civil Rights Act hereinabove invoked."
Petitioner states the following as facts in support of the above allegation:
Petitioner therefore demands the following relief:
In alleging that he was searched while in lawful custody, not at an unreasonable hour or in an unreasonable manner, nor that anything was taken from him as a result of the search, petitioner has not stated any denial of any federal right. A prisoner is entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. Brown v. Kearney (C.A.5) 355 F.2d 199; United States v. Hallman (C.A.3) 365 F.2d 289. "The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is one of the rights retained by prisoners subject, of course, to such curtailment as may be made necessary by the purposes of confinement and the requirements of security." Palmigiano v. Travisono (D.R.I.) 317 F.Supp. 776, 791. The facts alleged by petitioner, of a single search "at some time before midnight" carried out in an "aggressive and belligerent" manner, but during which no actual assault or other abuse is stated to have taken place, do not demonstrate that the search was unnecessary and unrelated to prison security. No violation of any federal right is thereby made out to warrant interference by a federal court in the control, discipline, treatment and security of state prisoners by the state of Missouri. Jackson v. Bishop (C.A.8) 404 F.2d 571, 577, and cases there cited. Frequent searches and inspections of a prison are warranted by prison control and security needs. In Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 1221, 8 L.Ed.2d 384, 388, it was stated that "In prison, official surveillance has traditionally been the order of the day," and the Court cited with approval a New York jail regulation directing frequent and thorough searches of all parts of the jail for contraband. A convict loses a great measure of his protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Martin v. United States (C.A.4) 183 F.2d 436; United States ex rel. Lombardino v. Heyd (E.D.La.) 318 F.Supp. 648, 650. In United States v. Follette (S.D.N.Y.) 282 F.Supp. 10, 13, it was held that, with respect to convicted probationers, a search could be deemed unreasonable "only if made too often or if made at an unreasonable hour or if unreasonably prolonged or for other reasons establishing arbitrary or oppressive conduct by the parole officer." None of these conditions are alleged by petitioner, nor are they inferable from the complaint or petition filed in this case, construing it most favorably to petitioner under the rule of Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148. A ruling in favor of petitioner on the facts which he has alleged would set a precedent which would endanger the security of the prisons and the personal safety of the persons who maintain and guard the prisons. Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. Petitioner therefore does not state any claim of denial of a federal right with respect to the search of his person and cell which was allegedly conducted by defendants on August 3, 1971. Nor does he allege any facts which, if true, would constitute irreparable injury.
Petitioner requests relief respecting other alleged violations of federal rights which have not happened to him, but to others. In this category, he lists verbal and physical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Williams
...1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384. 'A convict loses a great measure of his protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.' Burns v. Wilkinson, W.D.Mo., 333 F.Supp. 94, 96. The reasons are related to security or rehabilitative purposes. Jones v. Wittenberg, N.D.Ohio, 323 F.Supp. 93, 98(3). Likewis......
-
People v. Anderson
...ex rel. Randazzo v. Follette, Supra; United States v. Hallman, Supra; Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1966); Burns v. Wilkinson, 333 F.Supp. 94 (W.D.Mo.1971); Palmigiano v. Travisono, Supra; State v. Williams, 486 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.1972); People v. Thompson, 77 Misc.2d 700, 353 N.Y.S.......
-
Watson v. Wyrick
...v. Wyrick, 449 F.Supp. 969, 971 (W.D.Mo.1978); United States ex rel. Tyler v. Goins, 444 F.Supp. 95 (E.D.Mo.1978); Burns v. Wilkinson, 333 F.Supp. 94, 97 (W.D.Mo.1971); Wilson v. Garnett, 332 F.Supp. 888, 889 (W.D.Mo. 1970). A failure to exhaust available state remedies results in the dismi......
-
United States v. Savage
...into custody. A prisoner is entitled to the fourth amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Burns v. Wilkinson, 333 F. Supp. 94, 96 (W.D.Mo. 1971); Palmigiano v. Travisono, 317 F.Supp. 776, 791 (D.R.I. 1970). But under the standard enunciated in Katz v. United States,......