Cullum v. California Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 03 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 45970.,45970. |
| Citation | 267 F. Supp. 524 |
| Parties | Harvey Delbert CULLUM, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Harvey Delbert Cullum, in pro. per.
William D. Stein, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Calif., for defendants.
This is a civil rights action brought by a prisoner in which he alleges, in essence, that he was assaulted by a prison guard, seriously injured, and that he has not received adequate medical attention for his injuries. He asks for damages in the modest amount of $2,500,000.00. Defendants are seeking to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Assuming, as we must for the purposes of this motion, that the allegations of the complaint are true, a careful examination of the pleadings indicates that the plaintiff has not succeeded in stating sufficient facts to show that he has been denied any constitutionally protected right cognizable under the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
With respect to plaintiff's claim that he has received inadequate medical attention, there is a complete absence of factual allegations to sustain such a charge. Deprivation of essential medical care by state prison official may be, in an exceptional circumstance, actionable in federal courts under this section. United States ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, 337 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1964). The facts alleged by the plaintiff, however, show that he did receive medical treatment. He has failed to establish that this treatment was so inadequate as to constitute a violation of his constitutional rights.
This leaves the remainder of the complaint which describes an incident in which a guard struck plaintiff several times while removing him from a mess line in the prison dining hall.
It is clear from reading the complaint, even with its inflammatory language, that this treatment by the guard falls far short of being cruel and unusual punishment. See Jordan v. Fitzharris, 257 F.Supp. 674, 679 (N.D.Cal.1966). The most that plaintiff alleges is an assault by physical force on a single occasion. The real issue then is whether an assault which is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment, and which occurred in the disciplinary setting of a prison, constitutes a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. For the reasons outlined below, this Court believes that it does not.
If plaintiff were a private citizen and had been assaulted by a police officer, it is well established that he could state a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. Monroe v. Pape, 345 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1963). However, the plaintiff in this action is not a private citizen; he is a prisoner, and this distinction is crucial.
Status of the plaintiff is relevant for at least two reasons: First, a prisoner, unlike a private citizen, is maintained in custody for long periods of time. It is a fact of prison life that this confinement causes great tension, and that there are occasions which require the administration of summary discipline as a means for maintaining order. See Talley v. Stephens, 247 F.Supp. 683, 686 (E.D. Ark.1965). On the other hand, the private citizen, even as a suspect, is generally not confined to a penal institution, and the same considerations which justify discipline in prison are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrah v. Leverette
...Fisher v. Turner, 335 F.Supp. 577 (D.Utah 1972); Foster v. Jacob, 297 F.Supp. 299 (C.D.Cal.1969); Cullum v. California Department of Corrections, 267 F.Supp. 524 (N.D.Cal.1967); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973); Landm......
-
Wright v. McMann
...that district judges should become referees in prisoner-guard disputes of every nature or description. Cullum v. California Department of Corrections, 267 F.Supp. 524 (N.D.Cal.1967); Childs v. Pegelow, 321 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 932, 84 S.Ct. 702, 11 L.Ed.2d 652 (1......
-
Bolden v. Mandel, Civ. No. 73-866-H.
...a door against him and struck him with his fist had not stated an actionable claim under § 1983. In Cullum v. California Department of Corrections, 267 F.Supp. 524 (N.D.Calif.1967), the Court held that a § 1983 claim had not been stated in a complaint which alleged that a guard struck a pri......
-
Hancock v. Avery
...rights is amply supported by precedent. See, e. g., Burns v. Swenson, 288 F.Supp. 4 (W.D.Mo.1968); Cullum v. California Dept. of Corrections, 267 F.Supp. 524 (1967); Graham v. Willingham, 384 F.2d 367 (10th Cir. 1967); Jordan v. Fitzharris, supra; Wright v. McMann, supra; contra, Loux v. Rh......
-
The jurisprudence of the PLRA: inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty.
...administration was a technical matter to be left to experts...."). (42) See, e.g., Callum v. California Dep't of Corrections, 267 F. Supp. 524, 525 (N.D. Cal. 1967) (warning that "if every time a guard were called upon to maintain order he had to consider his possible tort liabilities it mi......