Johnson v. Teasdale
Citation | 456 F. Supp. 1083 |
Decision Date | 19 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 78-4150-CV-C.,78-4150-CV-C. |
Parties | Gary Vincent JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Joseph P. TEASDALE, Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft, Missouri Attorney General, Philip M. Koppe, Assistant Attorney General, James F. Walsh, Director, Missouri Department of Social Services, Bill Duncan, Investigator, Missouri Department of Social Services, John Dahm, Director of Community Services for the State of Missouri, Honorable Richard H. Ralston, United States Magistrate, Donald W. Wyrick, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary, Bill Armontrout, Associate Warden of Institutional Services, Calvin Beard, Associate Warden of Program Services, and Joseph Keene, Chief Mail Room Officer, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Gary V. Johnson, pro se.
Paul Robert Otto, Chief Counsel, Crim. Div., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants.
Plaintiff, presently confined at the Missouri State Penitentiary, Jefferson City, has filed a pro se civil rights action against a large number of state officers and Magistrate Richard Ralston of this Court. Jurisdiction is alleged to lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also seeks to prosecute this case as a class action on behalf of "all . . . persons who are currently, or may be in the future, inmates of the Missouri Department of Corrections."
The complaint also asserts that this conspiracy has denied prisoners their right to a jury trial.1 As relief, plaintiff requests that the Court declare 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) unconstitutional to the extent that it denies plaintiff his right to a jury trial and other elements of due process; order that "all dismissed cases under section 1983 (be) reopened for processings dating back to the Special Order of the Court en banc effective December 22, 1976;" appoint counsel; and order a jury trial on all issues stated in the complaint.
Before turning to the legal issues presented by the complaint, it is necessary to discuss the procedures, order and statute attacked by plaintiff.
On December 22, 1976, this Court, sitting en banc, entered an order which provides in pertinent part:
In addition to this order, plaintiff attacks 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1):
The pretrial conference procedure challenged by plaintiff was developed as an answer to unique problems presented by many pro se prisoner civil rights cases. See generally Federal Judicial Center, Recommended Procedures for Handling Prisoner Civil Rights Cases in the Federal Courts, Tentative Draft No. 2 (1977) (hereinafter Aldisert Report). The procedure has three purposes: First, it enables the Court to resolve any discovery problems that may have arisen during processing of a case. Second, the pretrial conference enables the Court to clarify crucial points in a complaint or determine the true nature of a prisoner's grievance through informal discussion. In many pro se prisoner actions, the factual allegations, legal claims, and requests for relief are not clear from the prisoner's written pleadings. Many prisoners submit complaints without any substantial factual allegations but seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, or a substantial damage award, when in reality they seek administrative aid concerning some problem. Typical cases in this class include requests for medical treatment or release from a segregation unit. A pretrial conference permits the court to inquire into the true problem underlying many prisoner complaints. Third, the pretrial conference allows the Court to resolve a substantial number of prisoner actions without a trial. A significant number of prisoner complaints are mooted after the complaint is filed. The pretrial conference discloses these actions and speeds their dismissal. Further, as noted previously, many prisoner complaints spring from a grievance or problem that can be resolved satisfactorily through administrative action by prison officials. The presiding judge or magistrate seeks to resolve such problems by acting as an informal arbitrator between prison officials and the complaining prisoner. This "grievance arbitration" provides the prisoner with the relief he actually seeks and ultimately results in dismissal of his action without prejudice.
The complaining prisoner and a supervisory official of the Missouri State Penitentiary, ordinarily Warden Wyrick, are present at the pretrial conference. An Assistant Attorney General, who represents the prison officials named as defendants, and counsel for the prisoner, if any, also attend. Magistrate Ralston of the Court presides. As a general rule, informal discussions during the conference are not recorded. Formal settlement agreements, admissions by a party, discovery orders, and similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tarkowski v. Robert Bartlett Realty Co.
...(4th Cir. 1977); Nickens v. White, 536 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1976); Holland v. Rubin, 460 F.Supp. 1051 (E.D.N.Y.1978); Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F.Supp. 1083 (W.D.Mo.1978).10 Cf. American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Chicago, 431 F.Supp. 25 (N.D.Ill., 1976) ("Plaintiffs further argue that t......
-
Howard v. Lockhart, s. 89-216
...actions. Dyer v. State, 258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975); Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971); see Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F.Supp. 1083 (W.D.Mo.1978). Hence, in none of the proceedings filed here or in circuit court by these petitioners is there any constitutional right to t......
-
Virgin v. A.L. Lockhart, 85-223
...Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975), or in a civil action. See Peterson v. Nadler, 452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971); see also Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F.Supp. 1083 (W.D.Mo.1978). Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the ci......
-
State Prisoners, Federal Courts, and Playing by the Rules: an Analysis of the Aldisert Committee's Recommended Procedures for Handling Prisoner Civil Rights Cases
...F. Supp. 944, 948-51 (S.D. Tex. 1977); Braden v. Estelle, 428 F. Supp. 595, 597 (S.D. Tex. 1977); Eighth Circuit, Johnson v. Teasdale, 456 F. Supp. 1083, 1086 (W.D. Mo. 1978); Green v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D. 680, 683 (W.D. Mo. 1976). Other courts refer generally to special forms for prisoners' ......