United States v. Fay
| Decision Date | 06 June 1963 |
| Citation | 217 F. Supp. 931 |
| Parties | The People of the UNITED STATES ex rel. Emanuel WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. Edward M. FAY, Warden, Green Haven Prison, and Paul D. McGinnis, Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, N. Y., for defendants.
No appearance for plaintiff.
Emanuel Washington, appearing for himself and three others, has filed a series of papers in this Court in which he has designated himself as plaintiff and the Warden of Green Haven State Prison, New York, and the Commissioner of Corrections of New York as defendants.
In his "Petition For Show Cause", Washington seeks "redress from persecution and the deprivation of the Freedom of Religious Worship, Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments" Art. I, Sec. 3 of the New York Constitution and Sec. 610 of the New York Correction Law,1 McK.Consol.Laws, c. 43.
We accept the petition filed by petitioner as a complaint. Service has been effected on the defendants, who have appeared and answered by the Attorney General of New York.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the Civil Rights Act 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981. The relief sought appears to be an injunction restraining the Warden of Green Haven Prison and the Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York from "persecution and other discriminatory practices" and directing them to permit a minister of the Muslim sect to guide petitioner and his fellow prisoners in "Prayer and Meditations".
A reading of the papers submitted discloses that petitioner is presently lawfully committed on a judgment of conviction from a State Court of competent jurisdiction.
Out of a mass of immoderate and unjustified accusations, there appears to emerge a charge of deprivation of constitutionally protected rights in that petitioner and his three fellow prisoners have been segregated from the others and deprived of the guidance of their own minister, and of the right to receive prayer books, Holy Koran magazines and newspapers, solely because they are adherents of the "Muslim Brotherhood".
The principal defense asserted is that the exercise of this "religion" by its followers must be regulated in group practice because, without such regulation, it would constitute a grave and immediate danger to the peace and security of the various New York prisons and the particular prison in suit. It is further asserted that the claimed "religion" is not an Islamic religion but a secret, dangerous society advocating violence, hate and vengeance on the white men detrimental to prison discipline, peace and security. The prison authorities further allege that, in pursuance of these objectives, its adherents in the various prisons have formed secret societies known as the "Muslim Brotherhood" which by a written constitution (a copy of which is attached to the answer) formulate secret plans, strategy and policies to be carried out by its members in the various state prisons. The defendants allege that petitioner and his followers have been segregated for breach of prison discipline, having nothing whatever to do with religion or religious beliefs. The answer also asserts that, in keeping with the New York Correction Law, rules and regulations have been promulgated by the Commissioner defining the qualifications required of and the opportunities for ministrations by ministers of recognized religious faiths.
This is not an isolated case—three such suits were filed in the Northern District of New York by prisoners in Clinton Prison (Pierce v. LaVallee, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 233); five in the Western District of New York by prisoners of Attica Prison; ten more in the Northern District of New York; and several in the New York State Court from which emerged the leading case Brown v. McGinnis, 10 N.Y.2d 531, 225 N.Y.S.2d 497, 180 N.E.2d 791, on a petition from Green Haven Prison, the institution here under consideration.
That a claim cognizable in the first instance in this Court is pleaded under the Civil Rights Act was settled by Chief Judge Clark of this Circuit in 1961 in Pierce v. LaVallee, supra, on an appeal from Judge Brennan's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it raised questions of prison discipline which should be resolved only in the State courts.
The complaint there alleged denial of permission to purchase the Koran, solitary confinement because of religious beliefs, and denial of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervison
...Commissioner is empowered to promulgate regulations pertaining to religious service and ministrations. See U. S. ex rel. Washington v. Fay, 217 F. Supp. 931, 933, n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). Because the First Amendment free exercise and establishment law claims survive review, the Court shall exe......
-
Walker v. Blackwell
...dealt with this problem on several occasions, and the district court for the Southern District of New York stated in United States ex rel. Washington v. Fay, 217 F.Supp. 931, D.C.N.Y.1963, that thirteen suits were filed by Muslims in the Northern District of New York by state prisoners, fiv......
-
Reese v. Abbott Laboratories, 78 C 1538.
...to apply to racial discrimination only. Brady v. Bristol-Meyers, supra. A third case relied on by plaintiff, United States ex rel. Washington v. Fay, 217 F.Supp. 931 (S.D.N.Y.1963) could fairly be read as finding a cause of action for religious discrimination under § 1981. However, the cour......