Landman v. Royster, Civ. A. No. 170-69-R.
Decision Date | 31 January 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 170-69-R. |
Citation | 354 F. Supp. 1302 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | Robert Jewell LANDMAN et al. v. M. L. ROYSTER, etc. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Philip J. Hirschkop, Alexandria, Va., for plaintiffs.
Vann H. Lefcoe, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va., Richmond, Va., for defendants.
This matter presents the question of whether Virginia prisoners, who in violation of their constitutional rights were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by Virginia prison authorities, may recover damages from their jailers. Five named plaintiffs in the above styled action seek damages, to-wit: Robert Landman, LeRoy Mason, Thomas Wansley, Calvin Arey and Roy Hood.
The history of this litigation is long and complex. Briefly, the named plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, on behalf of themselves and the plaintiff class of Virginia prisoners to redress alleged unconstitutional practices by the Virginia prison authorities, specifically with respect to administrative sanctions. The named defendants in the original complaint were the Director of the Department of Welfare and Institutions (Otis Brown), Director of the Division of Corrections (W. K. Cunningham), the Superintendent of the State Farm (M. L. Royster, now deceased), and the Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary (C. C. Peyton, now deceased). These defendants were named individually and in their representative capacities.
The trial of this action originally took several weeks and encompassed the testimony of numerous prisoners and prison officials. This Court concluded that "the evidence adduced has disclosed as to each of these points a disregard of constitutional guaranties of so grave a nature as to violate the most common notions of due process and humane treatment by certain of the defendants, their agents, servants and employees." Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 626 (E.D.Va.1971). Based upon findings of widespread constitutional abuse, the Court entered an injunction prescribing administrative procedures which would hopefully safeguard the constitutional guaranties of the plaintiff class. The Court herein specifically incorporates by reference, except as discussed below, said findings of fact and conclusions of law as contained in its order and memorandum of October 30, 1971.
The named plaintiffs are now before the Court in an effort to procure damages for the treatment to which the Court has previously found they were subjected. Upon a hearing, additional evidence was adduced, specifically with regard to the question of damages. The parties have submitted numerous documents, memoranda and have additionally been heard on the legal issues raised. The Court has carefully studied all the evidence, and upon same finds this matter ready for disposition.
In its memorandum of October 30, 1971, the Court made the following findings of fact with respect to Landman. Though given the opportunity to revise these findings, the evidence recently adduced does not prompt the Court to so alter them, and same are the basis upon which the Court will assess damages, infra.
Landman's testimony at the recent hearing is very much a recount of the above quoted findings. Plaintiff's counsel made, additionally, a concerted effort to draw from Landman his feelings and emotions as prompted by the series of incidents recited. Not unsurprisingly, Landman conveyed feelings of continual fear and frustration.
The indignities to which Landman was subjected can be illustrated in greater detail:
Fall of 1965:
1. He was placed in solitary by Guard Spann for pointing at him.
2. He was refused writing paper by the guards and subsequently had a pending suit dismissed for failure to make timely compliance with a Court order.
3. He was placed in solitary for "misuse" of writing paper.
December 1965:
4. Landman alleges, and the Court finds, that defendant Peyton threatened him with continued confinement to "C" Building although he never possessed weapons, never attempted or planned an escape.
5. His cell was searched by guards almost daily and legal papers were removed.
January 1966:
6. He addressed an envelope for an illiterate prisoner, which envelope was torn up by Guard Spann.
7. Landman lost weight from prolonged confinement in solitary but was not given a medical checkup.
February 1966:
8. He was put in solitary for some time without a mattress.
Spring 1966:
9. Guards removed legal pleadings from his files and he was told by guards, "someone should do something about you."
10. A suit was filed against Guard Spann for improper treatment. Landman was thereafter placed in solitary confinement for 17 days.
11. Landman was kept on padlock, confined to his cell, virtually isolated.
12. Repeated complaints to the penitentiary superintendent were allegedly answered with remarks to the effect that defendant Cunningham was personally directing his case and thus was out of the hands of the local prison officials.
September 23, 1968:
13. Landman was assaulted by another prisoner and beaten unconscious as guards "looked the other way."
In all, Landman was confined to solitary 11 different times, during which he was not afforded medical treatment nor given hearings prior to confinement.
Both counsel have adduced expert psychiatric testimony in an effort to show the adverse effects, or lack of them, that may have flowed from continual solitary or isolated confinement. The substance of the testimony is neither contradictory nor surprising: even a lay person could be expected to fairly deduce that the repetitious pattern of treatment to which Landman was subjected would have adverse psychological effects. Nevertheless, a discussion of that testimony is warranted.
Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Abse, is a psychiatrist with extensive experience in treating released prisoners of war. Specifically, he did much work with British soldiers released after World War II from Japanese prisoner of war camps and has since studied effects of isolated confinement upon civilian prisoners. Based upon his experience, he was able to generalize several typical patterns of reactive behavior, which patterns he labeled as symptomatic of "Traumatic Neuroses." The underlying cause of said behavior, he stated, was repression of emotions caused by isolation, fear and frustration. Symptoms associated with this type of neurosis include anxiety, destructiveness, easy fatigueability, diminished sexual potency, as well as psychosomatic illness (including gastric disorders, choking, headaches and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of Louisiana ex rel. Purkey v. Ciolino
...denied, 404 U.S. 1049, 92 S.Ct. 719, 30 L.Ed.2d 740 (1972); Collins v. Schoonfield, 363 F.Supp. 1152 (D.Md. 1973); Landman v. Royster, 354 F. Supp. 1302 (E.D.Va.1973). No 1983 claim for damages can be asserted against the State of Though only Mr. Koch and Mr. Ciolino are identified individu......
-
McCray v. Burrell
...been convicted of crime. The conditions of this confinement constitute a per se violation of the eighth amendment. See Landman v. Royster, 354 F.Supp. 1302 (E.D.Va.1973); Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621 The second violation is identical to the violation in McCray's case against Smith no......
-
Curtis v. Firth
...777 (1962). Another case in the federal judicial system which factually bears much similarity to Curtis v. Firth is Landman v. Royster, 354 F.Supp. 1302 (E.D.Va.1973). Language in that case which is readily applicable to the conduct of Curtis includes such terms as "phobic injuries; traumat......
-
Vaughn v. Trotter
...rights, and he acquiesced15 sufficiently therein to support liability under § 1983. See the analysis in Landman v. Royster, 354 F.Supp. 1302, 1316-18 (E.D.Va.1973). Alternatively, the court finds that Thompson engaged in direct action of a Mt. Healthy16 variety which constituted an impermis......