Sostre v. Preiser, 985
| Decision Date | 19 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 985,985 |
| Citation | 519 F.2d 763 |
| Parties | Martin SOSTRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter PREISER, Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 75-2036. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Michael E. Deutsch, Dennis Cunningham, Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Timothy F. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Jack W. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before ANDERSON, MANSFIELD and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
Appellant seeks to overturn the denial of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Edmund Port, Judge, in a civil rights action, seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Appellees include the New York Commissioner of Corrections and the wardens of Auburn and Clinton prisons. 1 Appellant has during most of the pendency of this appeal been confined at the Jefferson County Jail at Watertown, New York, by virtue of a stay entered by Judge Port and extended by this court, and is now confined at the federal detention center at West Street, New York City, by court order.
Appellant seeks to raise three issues on this appeal: (1) whether it was error to refuse to enjoin preliminarily a "no-beard" prison rule as applied to him (a bald-headed 52-year-old man with a 1/4 thin beard and moustache); (2) whether it was error to refuse to enjoin preliminarily confinement in punitive segregation which had occurred for approximately 17 months 2 for his refusal to comply with the "no-beard" rule; and (3) whether enforcement of a "rectal search" rule against him in segregation should have been preliminarily enjoined. We cannot pass upon these claims, however, and must reverse and remand since it nowhere appears in the record precisely what the "no-beard" and "rectal search" rules, if they are such, require. We do not know and counsel could not advise us whether these rules are limited to a given prison or state-wide in application; we do not know their language or how they apply. The "no-beard" rule is justified to us by the State on grounds of hygiene and necessity for identification purposes. But if, as counsel for the State indicated on oral argument, the same rule permits hair on the top of the head two inches in length and moustaches of any length, the hygiene hazards of a bald-headed man with a 1/4 beard seem so minimal as to be infinitesimal. And while a beard grown in prison might cover up prominent features so as to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify a given inmate, that apparently is not the case with Sostre, who had a quarter-inch beard when he was arrested; as he said in a Superintendent's Proceeding at Auburn, his beard "was in fact my identification."
Again, in respect to the rectal search rule, it is justified to us as necessary to prevent the intra-prison transfer of contraband. But it apparently has been applied to Sostre even though he has been segregated from other inmates, and so far as appears is therefore less likely to have contraband than other inmates. Rather than submit to a rectal search on going to or from the yard or on both, Sostre has chosen to forego the hour or so a day of "recreation" allowed to inmates in solitary. On the record before us we do not know if segregated inmates are subjected to the indignities of a rectal search on specific occasions or under circumstances different from those when other inmates are subjected thereto or if the latter are ever subjected to rectal searches. If regular and frequent rectal searches are designed as a form of punishment for inmates in segregation and not genuinely related to internal prison security, the constitutional implications are obviously different.
There was a time, of course, when prison inmates had no rights. Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. (21 Gratt.) 790, 796 (1871) (). That time is past. Limitations on fundamental rights such as we are here concerned with must be supported by the legitimate and reasonable "needs and exigencies of the institutional environment." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41, L.Ed.2d 935 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Palmer Palmer v. Hudson
...1983); United States v. Vallez, 653 F.2d 403, 406 (CA9), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 904, 102 S.Ct. 412, 70 L.Ed.2d 223 (1981); Sostre v. Preiser, 519 F.2d 763 (CA2 1975); United States v. Dawson, 516 F.2d 796, 805-806 (CA9), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855, 96 S.Ct. 104, 46 L.Ed.2d 80 (1975); Hansen......
-
Frazier v. Ward, 73-CV-306.
...On appeal, a Panel of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, remanded for fuller development of the record on the issue. Sostre v. Preiser, 519 F.2d 763 (2d Cir. 1975). As often happens in these State prisoner cases, after the concentrated interest of several federal courts, the case faded a......
-
United States ex rel. Wolfish v. Levi
...as applied to the States by the Fourteenth. Other authorities arrayed against "the indignities of a rectal search," Sostre v. Preiser, 519 F.2d 763, 764 (2d Cir. 1975), in at least some circumstances include Hodges v. Klein, supra, at 903; United States ex rel. Guy v. McCauley, 385 F.Supp. ......
-
Savard v. Rhode Island
...when the security needs they address could be met by less intrusive means. E.g., Giles, 746 F.2d at 617; Sostre v. Preiser, 519 F.2d 763, 764 (2d Cir. 1975). Other cases suggested that the availability of less intrusive means is irrelevant to the analysis so long as officials reasonably cou......