United States ex rel. Keen v. Mazurkiewicz

• Decision Date: 21 November 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 69-1989.
• Citation: 306 F. Supp. 483
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John KEEN v. Joseph F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Supt.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

306 F. Supp. 483

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. John KEEN v. Joseph F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Supt.

Civ. A. No. 69-1989.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

November 21, 1969.

John Keene, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. LORD, Jr., Chief Judge.

John Keen, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a petition in forma pauperis seeking an injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343, prohibiting further "harassment" of the petitioner. Joseph F. Mazurkiewicz, Superintendent of the Philadelphia Institution and the named defendant, answered this Court's show cause order and made a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's petition. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6).

Since there are no material facts at issue, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. The Court, in an Order dated September 24, 1969, ordered the parties to file briefs within thirty days. While the State, by David W. Rutstein, Esq., filed a brief with this Court (October 20, 1969), petitioner failed to do so. This Court has afforded petitioner an opportunity to submit a written statement in opposition to the motion to dismiss. Jordan v. County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania, 404 F.2d 747 (3rd Cir. 1969) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).

Broadly construed, plaintiff's petition raises two issues, both of which relate to his confinement in punitive solitary confinement in the State Correctional Institution. First, was the petitioner denied equal protection of the law in the determination that he be placed in this type of confinement and, secondly, does this confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Petitioner's first allegation is that he has been capriciously and arbitrarily placed in maximum security confinement in that "there is sic no commitment orders from any complaint Court stipulating that petitioner John Keen is an allege sic `security risk'." Petitioner therefore concludes, without setting forth any facts which could conceivably serve to support this conclusion, that he is being so confined because of his race.

The designation as a "security risk" is a function of the classification system of the Bureau of Correction and not necessarily that of the Court. The prison rule which permits the placing of an inmate in punitive segregation for serious violations of prison rules is a reasonable rule, one designed not only to aid in the orderly administration of prisons but also to protect other inmates. As a general proposition "federal courts will not interfere with uniformly applied prison regulations designed to achieve the discipline indispensable to the orderly operation of a state penal institution." United States ex rel. Wakeley v. Pennsylvania, 247 F.Supp. 7, 12 (E.D.Pa.1965). Unless extraordinary circumstances are shown, discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervisory direction of the federal courts. Ford v. Board of Mgrs. of the New Jersey State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3rd Cir. 1969); Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884 (3rd Cir. 1964); United States ex rel. Duronio v. Russell, 256 F.Supp. 479 (M.D.Pa.1966). Since there is no showing that the action taken with respect to this prisoner was arbitrary, there is nothing to indicate any reasonable basis for interfering with state authority, even though petitioner's claim is under the guise of violation of his constitutional rights. To the contrary, there is a clear showing that the defendant's decision to place the petitioner in punitive segregation was...