Puckett v. Cox, 71-1775.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 233 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1775.,71-1775. |
| Parties | Gentry B. PUCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Weldon W. COX, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 March 1972 |
456 F.2d 233 (1972)
Gentry B. PUCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Weldon W. COX, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 71-1775.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 8, 1972.
Gentry B. Puckett, in pro. per.
R. Jackson Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief for defendant-appellee; David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Nashville, Tenn., of counsel.
Before EDWARDS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges, and KEITH,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of Appellant Puckett's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant, a prisoner at The Tennessee State Penitentiary, seeks damages from the warden of that institution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a deprivation of his constitutional rights under color of state law. Specifically, Appellant's complaint asserts the following grounds for relief: 1) a denial of equal protection in that Appellee and his agents negligently permitted an "insane" prisoner to roam freely within the prison and allowed said prisoner to have access to dangerous instruments which he used to severely beat and injure Appellant; 2) cruel and unusual punishment in that Appellee and his agents caused Appellant to be placed in solitary confinement for a period of 10 days, solely because he had been beaten by the "insane" prisoner.
In dismissing the complaint, the District Court ruled that 1) "it is clear that negligence does not constitute a `deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983," and 2) the decision to place Appellant in solitary confinement does not constitute an "extreme case" warranting judicial intervention into the internal affairs of penal institutions.
We affirm the District Court's dismissal of the negligence claim—although for somewhat different reasons. We believe it is incorrect as a general rule, and misleading in this particular case, to state that the negligent conduct of a person acting under color of state law cannot be the basis for relief under § 1983. In Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), the Supreme Court expressly rejected
"In the Screws case Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 we dealt with a statute that imposed criminal penalties for acts `wilfully\' done. We construed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, K-88-71 C.A.
...81 S.Ct. 473, 484, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 556, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1219, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233, 235 (6th Cir. 1972); see Fitzke v. Shappell, 468 F.2d 1072 (6th Cir. 1972). In general, it is reasonable to infer that people intend the natu......
-
Bonner v. Coughlin, 74-1422
...F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1974); Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1972); Collins v. Florida, 432 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1970); Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1972); Brown v. United States, 486 F.2d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1973); Williams v. Field, 416 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1969), certiorari deni......
-
United States ex rel. Miller v. Twomey, 71-1854
...652 (1972), I would reverse the dismissal as to all individual defendants other than Bright and remand for a trial. Cf. Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. --------Notes: 1 108 Ill.Rev.Stats. § 45; Illinois Department of Public Safety, Rules Relating to Parole and Pardons 51-54 (1962). S......
-
Taylor v. Perini, 73-2071
...we have indicated previously, repeated acts of negligence may form the basis of liability for a prison warden under 1983. Pucket v. Cox, 456 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. However, the order in the District Court was entered 'without admission of any violation of the Constitutional rights, privileges o......