Jackson v. Werner, Civ. A. No. 75-359.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 75-359.
• Citation: 394 F. Supp. 805
• Parties: Tyrone Kenneth JACKSON, P-0844. v. Stewart WERNER, Commissioner, Bureau of Corrections, and James Howard, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

394 F. Supp. 805

Tyrone Kenneth JACKSON, P-0844. v. Stewart WERNER, Commissioner, Bureau of Corrections, and James Howard, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Civ. A. No. 75-359.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 4, 1975.

Joel S. Perr, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Frederick R. Nene, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

GOURLEY, Senior District Judge.

This is a Civil Rights complaint submitted to the Court by a state penal inmate who is confined in the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff contends that the policy of defendant institution on conducting strip searches as promulgated in the prison regulations is violative of plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also contends that his constitutional right of Due Process of law was violated by defendants' procedure in handling disciplinary complaints; more specifically, as it related to defendants' handling of a misconduct report and hearing held as a result of said report filed against plaintiff on January 30, 1975. Finally, plaintiff contends that punishments inflicted upon the prisoners are so harsh and disproportionate to the alleged infractions as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff is seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief. The immediate matter before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In ruling on motions for summary judgment, the law requires that the district court make only the determination as to whether there exists substantial and genuine issues of fact. Summary judgment is a method of testing whether there is any real basis for relief. Swettlen v. Wagoner Gas & Oil, Inc., 369 F.Supp. 893 (W.D.Pa., 1974). The Court has always abided by the general principle whereby it holds to be true each allegation set forth in petitioner's complaint. Moreover, the Court is quite aware of the general principle that factual inferences should not be drawn or credibility issues resolved in favor of the movant for summary judgment. Levin v. Marder, 343 F.Supp. 1050 (W.D.Pa., 1973).

Nevertheless, it is the considered judgment of the Court that the instant motion for summary judgment should be granted. As it appears from the pleadings, plaintiff has failed to establish how the prison regulation which requires strip searches of the prisoners after specified activities is of such constitutional infirmity to justify the granting of relief. It is settled law that some deprivations and inconveniences are a necessary and expected result of being an inmate of a penal institution which must provide for the custody, discipline, and rehabilitation of those who have violated the law. The task of determining the rights and deprivations of state prisoners falls...