Ralls v. Wolfe, Civ. No. 1777 L.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1971
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 1777 L.
• Citation: 321 F. Supp. 867
• Parties: Thomas RALLS, Jr., Plaintiff, and Charles McClelland, serving as fiduciary and conservator and next of friend applicant, under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, v. Charles WOLFE, Jr., Associate Warden of Custody, Nebraska Penal Complex, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

321 F. Supp. 867

Thomas RALLS, Jr., Plaintiff, and Charles McClelland, serving as fiduciary and conservator and next of friend applicant, under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, v. Charles WOLFE, Jr., Associate Warden of Custody, Nebraska Penal Complex, Defendant.

Civ. No. 1777 L.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

January 13, 1971.

Frederick J. Coffman, Lincoln, Neb., for plaintiff.

Harold Mosher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

URBOM, District Judge.

The defendant has filed a pleading captioned "motion to strike and motion for a more definite statement." If the motion to strike were sustained, the effect would be to emasculate the plaintiff's complaint. The primary thrust of the motion is that the allegations of the complaint do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It therefore appears proper to consider the motion to be a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleadings to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, within the meaning of Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Thomas Ralls, Jr., alleges that he is an inmate at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. Two principal occurrences are relied upon as stating a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act:

(1) On August 17, 1970, the defendant, Associate Warden of Custody of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, demanded that Thomas Ralls, Jr. remove a cardboard with which Ralls had dimmed the light in his cell in the maximum security unit, but permitted some other prisoners to have their lights darkened.

(2) At some unspecified time the defendant demanded that Ralls shave off his goatee and mustache under threat of being placed in the "hole" and on a restricted diet and, thereafter, refused to permit Ralls to use the law library or obtain assistance from the inmate legal assistant to prepare a legal case against the defendant regarding the shaving incident.

Ralls seeks injunctive relief and damages. Insofar as injunctive relief is concerned, it appears that no irreparable damage has been done or that irreparable damage will be done in the future in the absence of an injunction. A court will not grant an injunction if the granting of damages would compensate adequately for whatever loss has been suffered. This situation is quite different from one in which a state, through a school board, has refused to permit a student to attend school unless he cuts his hair. The giving of monetary compensation for the loss of an education would be a poor...