Harris v. Yeager
| Decision Date | 06 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 516-68. |
| Citation | 291 F. Supp. 1015 |
| Parties | Roscoe Joseph HARRIS, No. 39944, Plaintiff, v. Howard YEAGER, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, Trenton, New Jersey, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Roscoe Joseph Harris, pro se.
Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., of New Jersey, by Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Cross motions, supported by affidavits and memoranda, are here presented for summary judgment. From the undisputed record, it appears that the plaintiff Roscoe, Joseph Harris, an inmate of the New Jersey State Prison, alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343,2 in that the administrative policy of the prison provides for the withholding of 20¢ on the dollar of an inmate's monthly earnings until the sum of $10.00 has been accumulated, which moneys are deposited in a savings account for the benefit of the inmate and returned to him at the time of his release or discharge from the institution. Plaintiff complains that the pursuit of this administrative policy, during the more than six year period of his existing confinement, has deprived him of the interest and use of his own money without his consent and in violation of his civil rights. Accordingly, he seeks a restraining order enjoining the aforesaid practice and he demands damages in the amount of $600,000.00.
The defendant, Howard Yeager, as Principal Keeper of the New Jersey State Prison, is required by law to safely keep inmates thereof, until lawfully discharged, according to the rules and regulations of such correctional institution. R. S. 30:4-6, N.J.S.A. Additionally, the Principal Keeper is required by the same statute to exercise responsible custody and control of every person, indigent or otherwise, admitted to his institution and to provide for their well-being until properly discharged. Furthermore, he is legally required to see that capable inmates are engaged in productive occupations at such compensation, whether by way of cash or remission of time from sentence, or both, as shall be determined by the State Board of Control of Institutions and Agencies. R.S. 30:4-92, N.J.S.A.
Pursuant to such legislative and administrative requirements imposed upon him, the defendant executed the financial practice now challenged. It is undisputed that, since the filing of the complaint, and for reasons best known to the Board but not here pertinent, the practice in question has been discontinued by a resolution of the State Prison Board of Managers, effective October 1, 1968, and that notices thereof were posted throughout the State Prison Complex on September 27, 1968, advising the prison population that compulsory savings of an aggregate of $10.00 were being discontinued; and further, that moneys in such savings accounts would be credited to the spending accounts of the respective inmates.
The administrative practice having been discontinued, the judicial restraint aspect of the complaint has been rendered moot. However, there remains the question of whether plaintiff's civil rights have been violated and, if so, the extent of money damages, if any.
The New Jersey Legislature has provided for the payment of compensation to productive inmates of state institutions. R.S. 30:4-92, N.J.S.A. provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanskike v. Peters
...government to become its employees. Rather, they are working as part of their sentences of incarceration. See, e.g., Harris v. Yeager, 291 F.Supp. 1015, 1017 (D.N.J.1968) (payments for prison work assignments "are not wages in a realistic economic employer-employee relationship"), aff'd, 41......
-
Urbano v. Board of Managers of New Jersey State Prison
...as a whole. 5 Deductions from prisoners' wages were discontinued in 1968, as indicated in appellant's brief. See also Harris v. Yeager, 291 F.Supp. 1015, 1016-1017 (D.N.J. 1968, aff'd per curiam, 410 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 6 See N.J.S.A. 30:4-15, note 4, supra. 7 N.J.S.A. 30:4-16.1. 8 Understan......
-
Young v. Wall
...payment of this gratuity, nor to determine its form or amount. Gray v. Lee, 486 F.Supp. 41, 46 (D.Md.1980) (quoting Harris v. Yeager, 291 F.Supp. 1015, 1017 (D.N.J.1968) (internal quotations omitted), aff'd, 410 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir.1969)), aff'd, 661 F.2d 921 (4th Cir.1981). The state could a......
-
Ingenito v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NJ
...(formal statutory interpretation of Attorney General "strongly persuasive" but in no way binding on the courts). In Harris v. Yeager, 291 F.Supp. 1015, 1017 (D.N.J.1968), aff'd, 410 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir.1969) (per curiam), Judge Cohen held that a prison inmate has no inherent legal right to th......