United States ex rel. Holland v. Maroney

Decision Date15 April 1969
Docket NumberCiv. A. 69-442.
Citation299 F. Supp. 262
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. James A. HOLLAND, C-5201, John Meekins, H-2530, Leon Hooks, R-0630, George Parker, C-8610 and Rayford Holden, C-8708, Plaintiffs, Pro Se, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. James F. MARONEY et al., Norbert T. Welch, Deputy Superintendent, Peter S. Mangone, Athletic Director, Mitchell Klim, Nurse Instructor, Lieutenant Charles J. Kozakiewicz, Defendants, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
OPINION

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This matter is presented to the Court through the United States mail by inmates of a State penal institution within the jurisdiction of the Court. It is designated as a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Writ of Injunction and Damages and is, for all practical intents and purposes, a class action. It is directed against the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, the Athletic Director, Nurse Instructor and a Lieutenant of the guards, all at the prison where the petitioners are incarcerated.

The action is presented to the Court by four inmates who claim they have been denied rights under the Constitution of the United States and are being persecuted due to the fact that they are of the black race. The Petition is comprised of nineteen, handwritten pages which are most difficult to evaluate and understand. It asks for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appointment of legal counsel and the issuance of an injunction and money damages.

The penal inmates as a group request the following relief:

(a) that the Court declare the defendants guilty of racial persecution;
(b) that the Court restrain the defendants from further persecution of the plaintiffs and from denying them their Constitutional rights;
(c) that the Court restrain the defendants from isolating the plaintiffs and restore them to the general institutional population;
(d) that the Court direct that the plaintiffs have the same rights as the other inmates;
(e) that damages be awarded in the amount of $2,500,000.

A most careful reading, evaluation and study of the detailed and evidentiary allegations reveals the following: that the plaintiffs are of the black race and that the defendants who are of the white race harass, intimidate and deny their request for racial equality, subject them to mental and physical barbaric torture, deny them freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, engage in unreasonable seizures, subject them to slavery, deny them equal protection of the laws, do not give them the same privileges that are given white persons; that they cannot purchase and hold real and personal property as white citizens; that punishment has been imposed without cause or justification; that they are kept in dirty cells that are infested with rats; denied meals and proper foods; not allowed to communicate with an attorney or their families; denied the right to exercise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Echols v. Voisine, Civ. A. No. 78-10165.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • January 5, 1981
    ...Peartree, 326 F.Supp. 755, 759 (ED Pa, 1971); Friedman v. Younger, 46 F.R.D. 444, 446-447 (CD Cal, 1969); United States ex rel. Holland v. Maroney, 299 F.Supp. 262, 263 (WD Cal, 1969); Jemzura v. Belden, 281 F.Supp. 200, 204 (ND NY, Based on the foregoing authority, the Court, in its discre......
  • Burton v. Peartree
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 5, 1971
    ...On this ground alone the complaint may be dismissed. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124 (8 Cir. 1968), United States ex rel. Holland v. Maroney, 299 F.Supp. 262 (W.D.Pa.1969). Since filing his complaint, Burton has submitted numerous motions, requests, and demands to the Court. Althou......
  • Martin v. Warrington, CIVIL ACTION No. 01-1178 (E.D. Pa. 3/5/2002)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 5, 2002
    ...that plaintiff's fifty-nine paragraph complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 but declined to dismiss it. In U.S. ex rel. Holland v. Maloney, 299 F. Supp. 262 (W.D.Pa. 1969), although noting the complaint "openly and flagrantly violate[d] Rule 8(a)," the court addressed the merits. Id. at 26......
  • Jannes v. Microwave Communications, Inc., 69 C 2252.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • January 8, 1971
    ...in perplexing and disjointed detail." Adair v. Schneider, 293 F.Supp. 393, 394 (S.D.N.Y.1968). See also United States ex rel. Holland v. Maroney, 299 F.Supp. 262 (W.D.Pa. 1969); Martin v. Hunt, 29 F.R.D. 14 (D.Mass.1961). Furthermore, the pleading of bald conclusions unsupported by factual ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT