Gordon v. Watson, No. 79-2631
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE and SAM D. JOHNSON; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 622 F.2d 120 |
| Parties | John H. GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack WATSON, III and George Cansler, Defendants-Appellees. Summary Calendar. * |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2631 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1980 |
Page 120
v.
Jack WATSON, III and George Cansler, Defendants-Appellees.
Fifth Circuit.
Page 121
John H. Gordon, pro se.
William K. Howell, Jr., Senior Asst. County Atty., DeLand, Fla., Gene White, Asst. State's Atty., Daytona Beach, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
While a pre-trial detainee, John H. Gordon filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jack Watson, III, a Florida assistant state attorney, and George Cansler, the Director of the Volusia County Jail Department of Corrections. Gordon's complaint and amended complaint alleged that he was subjected to punitive confinement after complaining to a judge that Watson and Cansler had denied him telephone privileges. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that "there is no issue of fact as to punitive confinement" and that the denial of Gordon's access to the telephone did not violate his constitutional rights. Because we find that the proffered materials are insufficient to support the grant of summary judgment, we vacate and remand.
Gordon had been in custody at the Volusia County Jail since February 1978, when he failed to post bond on an arrest for possession of a controlled substance. On March 4 or 5, according to Gordon's allegations, Gordon was denied visitors and perhaps telephone privileges. 1 On April 5, 1978, the Volusia County grand jury returned a four-count indictment against Gordon for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. On April 6, Gordon was brought before a judge to be formally arrested on the above charges. At that hearing, he complained to the judge that Cansler, under the direction of Watson, had denied him telephone privileges.
When Gordon returned to the Volusia County Jail that day, Cansler, at Watson's request, moved Gordon to the Volusia County Annex facility and limited Gordon's access to the telephone, allowing him to call only his attorney. The next day (April 7), Cansler, again at Watson's direction, moved Gordon from the annex back to the main facility of the Volusia County Jail, where he once again had access to the telephone.
On April 13 Gordon filed this complaint. Pursuant to court order, he amended his
Page 122
complaint on May 12 to allege that he had been "subjected to punitive confinement and isolation confinement and (had been) placed in the hole after telling Judge Griffin of the denial of phone call (sic) by officers under George Cansler by order of Jack Watson." He sought release from maximum security confinement, some contact visits, rules to protect other prisoners, and $300,000.00 in damages. By the time of the amended complaint (and perhaps as early as April 7) and until August 18, Gordon was incarcerated in a number of one-man cells. Over the next several months he was transferred several times back and forth between the Volusia County Jail and a state correctional facility, where he now remains. He was confined at various times in both one-man cells and so-called "population" cells during his remaining confinement at the Volusia County Jail.After he had filed the amended complaint, Gordon moved for an order seeking his release from maximum security. The defendants filed a response to the motion, verified by Edward Froman, a Lieutenant in the Volusia County Jail and acting Chief Correctional Officer, which stated that Gordon was being held in one-man cells "due to the seriousness of the convictions and the pending charges." Before the court ruled on the motion, Watson and Cansler moved for summary judgment, attaching affidavits of Watson and Froman. Watson's affidavit stated that he had restricted Gordon's telephone privileges because he was afraid that Gordon would call certain persons in possession of, or with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mays v. US Postal Service, Civ. No. 95-D-559-E.
...report was not sworn or certified, as required by Rule 56(e), and therefore, the court may not consider it. See Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, the court analyzes said report in this opinion because the court recognizes that if no objec......
-
Hicks v. Bexar County, Tex., No. SA-96-CA-951.
...Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d at 1396-97. 44. Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir.1981); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 45. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (refusing to permit a pro se litigant to rely upon an unverified pleading and unauthenticate......
-
Frazier v. Board of Trustees of Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center, No. 83-4679
...evaluation of the merits of appellant's section 1983 claim under the law as it then stood. See Kirchberg, 708 F.2d at 998; Marshall, 622 F.2d at 120. More precisely, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion, Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., 596 F......
-
Foster v. S. Health Partners, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-835-WHA (WO)
...statements, even from pro se parties, should not be considered in determining the propriety of summary judgment."); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that "the court may not consider [the pro se inmate plaintiff's unsworn statement] in determining the propriety of......
-
Mays v. US Postal Service, Civ. No. 95-D-559-E.
...report was not sworn or certified, as required by Rule 56(e), and therefore, the court may not consider it. See Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, the court analyzes said report in this opinion because the court recognizes that if no objec......
-
Hicks v. Bexar County, Tex., No. SA-96-CA-951.
...Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d at 1396-97. 44. Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir.1981); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 45. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (refusing to permit a pro se litigant to rely upon an unverified pleading and unauthenticate......
-
Frazier v. Board of Trustees of Northwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center, No. 83-4679
...evaluation of the merits of appellant's section 1983 claim under the law as it then stood. See Kirchberg, 708 F.2d at 998; Marshall, 622 F.2d at 120. More precisely, the issuance of a preliminary injunction is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion, Vision Center v. Opticks, Inc., 596 F......
-
Foster v. S. Health Partners, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-835-WHA (WO)
...statements, even from pro se parties, should not be considered in determining the propriety of summary judgment."); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that "the court may not consider [the pro se inmate plaintiff's unsworn statement] in determining the propriety of......