Lloyd v. Oliver
Decision Date | 24 August 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 301-73-R. |
Citation | 363 F. Supp. 821 |
Parties | Mark Ray LLOYD v. R. M. OLIVER, Superintendent, Virginia State Farm, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Mark Ray Lloyd, pro se.
Burnett Miller, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va., Richmond, Va., for defendant.
Mark Ray Lloyd, a Virginia prisoner, seeks relief from an alleged constitutional deprivation. Jurisdiction is attained by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 42 U. S.C. Sec. 1983. The parties are presently before the Court pursuant to defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Lloyd complains of his transfer from a job assignment at the State Farm Book Shop to the prison laundry. Specifically, he alleges that said transfer was effected without an Adjustment Committee (IAC) Hearing, that the Institutional Classification Committee (ICC) decision which approved said transfer was punitive and that the laundry assignment is dangerous to his health. His allegation that the transfer was punitive is conclusory on his part and he nowhere alleges any factual matter in support thereof.
The facts are not in dispute. Lloyd was transferred by the ICC without a hearing from the Book Shop to the laundry upon the recommendation of three of his supervisors who felt that he was a disruptive influence at his former job and not behaviorally well-suited to same. Although the transfer did not involve any change in security status, Lloyd asserts that, because the laundry assignment is less desirable, the effect of said transfer was to punish him.
The Court concludes that Lloyd's position is without merit. The Court has heretofore ruled that the ICC which determines such matters as security status and job assignments, must act in a manner which is free of arbitrariness or punitive intent. Ferrell v. Huffman, 350 F.Supp. 164 (E.D.Va. 1972). Freedom from arbitrariness is a constitutional requirement of action by state agencies, see e. g. Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed.2d 287 (1970); that the ICC act without punitive intent is constitutionally mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment within the framework of the prison administrative organization, see Ferrell.1 These standards are prerequisites for all ICC determinations.
When the ICC considers a security status change, and the prisoner is thus liable to lose certain privileges, a hearing is mandated. Landman v. Royster, 354 F.Supp. 1292 (E.D.Va.1973). The nature of that hearing is discussed in Landman, supra, and in Nimmo v. Simpson, CA 163-73-R.
The question presently before the Court is whether a hearing is required where the ICC...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beatham v. Manson
...of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. See Hanvey v. Pinto, 441 F.2d 1154 (3d Cir. 1971). See also Lloyd v. Oliver, 363 F. Supp. 821, 822 (E.D.Va.1973). Only when intrastate transfers have been made for apparently disciplinary reasons, with the prisoner being deprived of th......
-
Chapman v. Plageman
...administrative task with which a federal court ought not to tamper absent evidence of arbitrariness and discrimination. Lloyd v. Oliver, 363 F.Supp. 821 (E.D. Va.1973); See also Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3rd Cir. 1970), Breeden v. Jackson, 457 F.2d 578 (4th Cir. 1972). Since the p......
-
Jones v. Institutional Classification Com., Field Unit# 8, Civ. A. No. 73-C-55-H
...to deciding whether the ICC action taken was arbitrary or capricious, Ferrell v. Huffman, supra, or punitive in nature,3 Lloyd v. Oliver, 363 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Va.1973). With respect to the procedures employed in an ICC action, the court will inquire only as to whether certain minimal due pr......
-
Wesson v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 73-342-R.
...classification hearing where identification of the informant might cause him to be placed in grave bodily danger) and Lloyd v. Oliver, 363 F.Supp. 821 (E.D.Va.1973) (no hearing required for institutional job transfer by ICC). Specific issues which arise in a given case or type of case are t......