Foster v. Jacob
| Decision Date | 03 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 69-340. |
| Citation | 297 F. Supp. 299 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Elias B. FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. JACOB, Correctional Officer; Green, Correctional Officer; Saam, Correctional Officer; and Dr. McLarney, Chief Medical Officer, Defendants. |
Elias B. Foster, in pro. per.
No appearance for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
The plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Men's Colony at Los Padres, California. He seeks to bring this action for damages based upon the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., alleging that certain employees of the California Department of Corrections have violated his rights under the United States Constitution, as hereinafter discussed. The plaintiff has sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
According to the complaint, all of the plaintiff's problems concerned in this matter began when he tried to deposit in the mail room of the penal facility a legal document intended for this court; defendant Jacob, who was there on duty, told him that his papers were not in order and tossed them back toward the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the plaintiff refused to catch them, they fell onto the floor. The plaintiff contends that his constitutional right to communicate with the court was thereby violated. The plaintiff does not describe just what papers were involved in this altercation. However, the records of this court reveal that the plaintiff had filed with this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus (No. 68-1263-EC), which was denied by Judge Crary on August 27, 1968. The file contains a notice of appeal that the plaintiff filed on September 16, 1968, and it also contains copies of orders later issued by the Court of Appeals in apparent response to plaintiff's requests directed to that body. The plaintiff states that his altercation with defendant Jacob over the sufficiency of the legal papers took place on about September 11, 1968. If, as seems apparent, the legal papers concerned the hereinabove mentioned action, the plaintiff's access to the court was not long forestalled. The plaintiff does not allege what document it was that was intercepted, nor does he make any contention that it was not sent to the court within a reasonable time. Control of the mail to and from inmates is an essential part of prison administration and the maintenance of order within such a facility. McCloskey v. Maryland, 337 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 1964); Ortega v. Ragen, 216 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1954). It seems evident that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrah v. Leverette
...1046 (E.D.Ill.1975); Donahue v. Maynard, 437 F.Supp. 47 (D.Kan.1977); 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.) c......
-
Bolden v. Mandel, Civ. No. 73-866-H.
...the guard delayed taking him to the doctor. The Second Circuit held that these allegations stated a claim under § 1983. Foster v. Jacob, 297 F.Supp. 299 (C.D. Calif.1969), involved allegations that a guard had punched a prisoner during an argument. The Court dismissed the action, noting tha......
-
Martinez v. Rosado, 78 CIV. 4069.
...burns); Fisher v. Turner, 335 F.Supp. 577 (D.Utah 1972) (guard's slamming door on inmate and hitting him with fist); Foster v. Jacob, 297 F.Supp. 299 (C.D.Cal.1969) (striking prisoner during argument); Cullum v. California Dep't of Corrections, 267 F.Supp. 524 (N.D. Cal.1967) (striking pris......
-
Sheffey v. Greer, Civ. No. 73-269-E.
...Nor is such an assault sufficient to establish a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Foster v. Jacob, 297 F.Supp. 299 (C.D.Cal.1969). This Court is of the opinion that plaintiff's complaint does not meet the test, enunciated above, which would raise the degree o......