Long v. Harris, L-1244
| Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | L-1474,L-1550 and L-1574.,L-1380,No. L-1244,L-1402,L-1512,L-1492,L-1244 |
| Citation | 332 F. Supp. 262 |
| Parties | James X. LONG, Plaintiff, and Paul X. Duhart et al., Intervening Plaintiffs, v. C. E. HARRIS, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Defendant. Bro. Edward J. X. FORD, Jr., Minister, Plaintiff, and Eddie X. O'Neal et al., Intervening Plaintiffs, v. Norman CARLSON, Director, Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants. Vincent L. X. PINA, Petitioner, v. C. E. HARRIS, Warden, Respondent. Ronald X. REED, Petitioner, v. Assistant Warden PUTMAN and Warden C. E. Harris, Respondents. Bobby Joe X. THOMAS, Petitioner, v. Associate Warden PUTMAN and Warden C. E. Harris, Respondents. UNITED STATES of America ex rel. James H. MOORE, Petitioner, v. Warden C. E. HARRIS, Respondent. James X. LONG, Plaintiff, v. Norman CARLSON, Director, Bureau of Prisons, et al., Defendants. James X. LONG, Petitioner, v. C. E. HARRIS, Warden, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Robert E. Davis and Thomas M. Dawson, Leavenworth, Kan., for petitioners-plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs.
Richard L. Meyer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Topeka, Kan., for respondents-defendants.
MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT
These actions were commenced by the various petitioners as petitions for habeas corpus relief, complaints of denial of civil rights and for damages, "Motions to Show Cause," and "Motions for Writ of Mandamus." In each case the basic contention was that the petitioner, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, was held in segregated confinement with loss of privileges, without just cause, solely because of his race or religious belief. All claimed subjection to cruel and unusual punishment and violation of constitutional rights by deprivation of due process and that the actions of the respondents were arbitrary and capricious. At their request, the complaints of petitioners Ford and Malry have been dismissed. Turner and Dennis have been released from custody on mandatory release. Caver has been released by court order. Slaughter, Sealie and Jones have been transferred to other institutions.
General
1. All times and periods of time mentioned in these findings are those material to the issues. All references to the "penitentiary" are to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas. Reference to "petitioners" includes plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs.
2. Each of the petitioners was an inmate of the penitentiary. Each is black and claims membership in the Nation of Islam, sometimes known as the Black Muslims, of which Elijah Muhammad is the titular head. For the purposes of these actions only, I find that each petitioner is a member of the Nation of Islam and that the Nation of Islam is a religion.
3. Each of the defendant-respondents was an officer or employee of the United States Bureau of Prisons and, excepting John N. Mitchell, Attorney General, and Norman Carlson, Director of the Bureau, was on duty at the penitentiary.
4. R. I. Moseley was warden of the penitentiary during part of the time under consideration. He was succeeded upon his retirement by C. E. Harris. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) (1), F.R.Civ.P., C. E. Harris is substituted as a party-respondent for R. I. Moseley.
5. Approximately 2,200 inmates were confined at the penitentiary. Of these, approximately forty claimed membership in the Nation of Islam.
6. Two separate groups of inmates competed for leadership and control of the Black Muslim population of the penitentiary. One group included Long, Duhart, Pina, Caver, Stokes, Barron, Mayes, Malry, Cargill, Dennis, Chapman and Crable. This group recognized Long as Minister. The other, made up of Ford, O'Neal, Thomas, Slaughter, Sealie, Turner, Jones, Rose, Reed, Moore and others recognized Ford as Minister. Each group sought to impose its will on the other group and on the remaining Black Muslim prisoners. The existence of such infra-structures within the penitentiary, each seeking to exercise control over other inmates, multiplied the problems of administration, endangered the security of the institution and posed a continuing threat to the safety of its officers and of prisoners not submitting to the group's control.
7. It was the policy of the United States Bureau of Prisons and of the warden of the penitentiary to place in segregated confinement inmates determined to be a threat to themselves, to others, or to the safety and security of the institution. All inmates so confined, including the petitioners, were within one or two days after initial confinement notified orally of the charges against them, given an opportunity to answer the charges, and accorded a hearing before a committee known as the adjustment committee, made up of officers of the penitentiary. The case of each inmate in segregated confinement was reviewed by the adjustment committee at least once weekly.
8. Segregated confinement was divided into three phases. Inmates in the first two phases were confined in a building described as the Control Unit and known generally as "CU." Incorrigibles and persistently assaultive inmates were confined in maximum security cells on the first floor of "CU." (Phase #1). Those considered less dangerous to themselves and others were confined in single cells on the second floor of "CU." (Phase #2). When, in the judgment of the adjustment committee, an inmate confined in "CU" became less intractable he was transferred to a block of cells in C cellhouse, known as "CCU." (Phase #3). All inmates in segregated confinement were given the same food as other inmates, but were served in their cells rather than in the dining hall. Prisoners in Phase #1 ("CU") were furnished bedding and permitted to have visitors one hour each month. Those in Phrase #2 ("CU") were allowed the same property as the general population and two hours of visiting privileges each month. Prisoners in Phase #3 ("CCU") had three hours of visiting privileges each month. (Prisoners in the general population were allowed four hours of visitation each month).
9. Black Muslim services were provided for two hours each Sunday at the penitentiary chapel. A custodial officer of the penitentiary was present at the chapel during such services. Black Muslim inmates were permitted to listen for thirty minutes each week to radio broadcasts by Elijah Muhammad.
10. In deference to those inmates whose religion forbids the eating of pork, including Black Muslims, menus were published for each meal with all items containing pork marked to so indicate. A Black Culture program administered by a black employee of the penitentiary was initiated by the respondents. All black inmates were encouraged to attend.
11. In a pamphlet entitled, "Your Orientation Brochure — Muhammad's Mosque of Islam" (Petitioners' Exhibit 21), the organization of the Black Muslim movement is described. There are levels of rank, each with prescribed responsibilities. Ministers are directly responsible to Elijah Muhammad; the Captains and Lieutenants to the Minister. It is stated:
Page 18 of the brochure consists of "General Orders," a slightly changed version of the General Orders every Army recruit was once required to memorize, with the same references to sentinels, Commanding Officers, and officers of the day and of the guard.
12. During the months of March and April, 1970, the respondents and other officers at the penitentiary came to the conclusion that tension was building up between separate groups of Black Muslims, and between some of the Black Muslims and non-Muslim inmates. This conclusion was based on the occurrence of fights between prisoners, observation of the inmates (including the petitioners), interviews with inmates, and the respondents' experience at the penitentiary and at other federal penal institutions where they had served.
13. A separate file was maintained at the penitentiary for each inmate. These files were available to the respondents and each contained information as to the criminal record of the subject inmate, and all reported infractions of disciplinary rules at federal penal institutions where that inmate had been confined.
14. At no time was any action taken by any respondent solely because of the race or religious belief of the petitioner who was the subject of that action. In each instance in issue the action taken by any respondent with respect to any petitioner did not differ from the action which would have been taken against any other inmate of the penitentiary under the same circumstances.
15. In each instance that action was taken by a respondent against a petitioner, there existed probable cause to believe that the petitioner involved was engaged in concert with others, in disruptive activities calculated to destroy discipline and order within the penitentiary and posing a threat to other inmates and to the safety and security of the penitentiary.
16. Long. Long was serving a life sentence for murder in the first degree and robbery. He was confined in "CU" from April 27,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Raines
...State must show compelling justification for such deprivations. Griffin v. Bennett, No. 76-84-C3 (D.Kan., June 2, 1976); Long v. Harris, 332 F.Supp. 262 (D.Kan.1971), aff'd 473 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Jones v. Rundle, 453 F.2d 147 (3rd Cir. 1971). The State's asser......
-
Hodges v. Klein
...indeed, positive penological purpose. There is no equal protection violation incurred by the Unit's existence. See Long v. Harris, 332 F.Supp. 262, 270 (D.Kan.1971), aff'd. p. c. 473 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. There is also no equal protection violation engendered by the classification of inmates......
-
Moss v. Ward
...Beishir v. Swenson, supra. See, Collins v. Schoonfield, 363 F.Supp. 1152 (D.Md.1973); Holt v. Hutto, supra. See, also, Long v. Harris, 332 F.Supp. 262, 270 (D.Kan.), aff'd per curiam, 473 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. Plaintiff also claimed that depriving him of food without holding a prison discipl......
-
Sconiers v. Jarvis
...rights in the practice of their religion as can be exercised without impairing the requirements of prison discipline." Long v. Harris, 332 F.Supp. 262, 270 (D.Kan.1971), aff'd, 473 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1973). As noted earlier, defendants have presented ample evidence that plaintiff's psycho......