Lewis v. Oliver, Civ. A. No. 74-0197-R.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-0197-R. |
| Citation | 397 F. Supp. 1204 |
| Parties | Joseph Nathaniel LEWIS, Jr., et al. v. R. M. OLIVER, etc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
John N. Lewis, Jr., pro se.
James W. Hopper, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va., Richmond, Va., for defendants.
Joseph Nathaniel Lewis, Jr., and Lewis Edward Matthews, Virginia prisoners, filed an amended complaint May 14, 1974, in which they complained of (1) defendants' establishment of an inmate "monitor" force at the State Penitentiary; and (2) the administration of the State Penitentiary furlough program. Plaintiffs seek monetary relief and a transfer to another institution. Defendants are Virginia correctional officials. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment accompanied by affidavits and prison records.
Plaintiffs allege various nefarious activities on the part of the leaders of the inmate "monitor" force: that they deal in drugs, rape other inmates, control an inmate prostitution ring, are allowed to read other inmates' mail, and commit "most of the crimes that have been committed in the penitentiary." Defendant Paderick, the Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, states in an affidavit that the "monitor" force was organized in June, 1973, to advise and assist correctional officers in the maintenance of penitentiary security and was subsequently disbanded in October, 1973, when additional guards were hired. Since the "monitor" force was disbanded in October, 1973, and since plaintiffs have failed to allege specific compensable injury as a result of the alleged deprivations of the "monitor" force, there was no case or controversy between the parties on the "monitor" issue at the time that this action was filed and the "monitor" claim shall therefore be dismissed.
Plaintiffs level two charges at the administration of the State Penitentiary furlough program. They first allege that defendants have permitted some inmates who are assertedly poor security risks to participate in the furlough program. Defendant Paderick admits by affidavit that the furlough program was relaxed somewhat during the summer of 1973 in order to enable more inmates to participate in the program, but states that furlough eligibility requirements were tightened again in October, 1973.
The Court, however, has held that state correctional officials must be accorded great latitude in administering experimental rehabilitative programs, such as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial