United States v. Myers
| Decision Date | 18 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. M-3044.,M-3044. |
| Citation | 244 F. Supp. 826 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Robert HENSON v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, and Clarence B. Wolfe, Deputy Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Robert Henson pro se.
Edward G. Baver, Jr., City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
This is a civil action brought by a state prisoner on July 19, 1965 to enjoin the superintendents of a state correctional institution from interfering with petitioner's right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts. He had previously filed a petition for such a writ which was dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies (Misc. No. M-2992).
Henson alleges that the prison officials have denied him his mail which contains law books, have not permitted him to correspond freely with legal publishing houses to obtain more citations and cases or to keep books in his cell or to use the prison library to ferret out applicable cases. He concludes that the sum total of these restrictions is to deny him the right to file his habeas corpus petition in the federal courts. He prays that the prison officials be enjoined from such actions.
Pursuant to our order of July 20, 1965 to the City Solicitor to answer or otherwise plead, the City of Philadelphia filed motions to dismiss on four grounds, failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted, lack of competence in the federal courts to supervise prison administration, failure to exhaust an appeal and finally lack of the existence of an actual controversy within the meaning of the statute cited. Decision had been originally reserved by us as to petitioner's request for appointment of counsel and the necessity of a hearing.
Petitioner cited Title 18, section 241, U.S.C.A. in his complaint as the basis for relief. This provides only for criminal action against the offenders. His prayer will be treated for the purposes of this opinion as one for a preliminary injunction under Title 42, section 1983 U.S.C.A., which states that equity actions may be brought for violations of federal civil rights which occur under color of state law.
Generally, the federal courts will not interfere with the internal administration of state prisons. Prison officials must have wide discretion in the promulgation of rules to govern the inmates, even to the point of denying basic constitutional rights. United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 213 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1954), cert. den. 348 U.S. 846, 75 S. Ct. 68, 99 L.Ed. 667.
Access to the federal courts however has apparently been defined as a constitutional right which cannot be completely overridden by prison officials. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941). This is to preclude a situation where a prisoner could not test the validity of his conviction or his continued incarceration.
In this case there is no evidence that Henson has been deprived of reasonable access to the courts. His original petition for a writ was sent and received by the courts and presumably further documents would likewise be handled properly by the prison officials. Moreover, this complaint in question reached this court without undue delay.
Regarding his claim that his mail was intercepted, Henson's plea falls short of the mark. It is not doubted that prison officials have wide discretion in the type of mail which a prisoner may receive, send and keep. Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952). The superintendents of the correctional institution moreover have no duty to see that Henson obtains a legal education in prison so that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Pepersack
...but it is the duty of this Court to give relief if demanded by the facts regardless of the form of action"); United States ex rel. Henson v. Myers, 244 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.Pa.1965) (action under 18 U.S.C. § 241 treated as a request for a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § Most cases cont......
-
Cross v. Powers
...v. Birzgalis, 314 F. Supp. 808 (W.D.Mich.1970); White v. Blackwell, 277 F.Supp. 211, 217 (N.D. Ga.1967); United States ex rel. Henson v. Myers, 244 F.Supp. 826, 828 (E.D.Pa. 1965); In re Harrell, 2 Cal.3d 675, 87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 470 P.2d 640 (1970). However, this concept is not unique to hab......
-
Seale v. Manson, Civ. No. 14077.
...F.Supp. 998, 1001 (D.S.C. 1968); United States ex rel. Oakes v. Taylor, 274 F.Supp. 42, 43 (E.D.Pa. 1967); United States ex rel. Henson v. Myers, 244 F.Supp. 826, 827 (E.D.Pa. 1965). Courts lack the vast experience of prison officials and therefore, absent extreme circumstances, should not ......
- Robbins v. Kass
-
Reading Law in Prison
...600, 425 P. 2d 200 (1967). 10 Matter of Chessman v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. 2d 1, 279 P. 2d 24 (1955); U. S. ex rel. Henson v. Myers, 244 F. Supp. 826 (E. D. Penna., on the number of books a prisoner may haveli; on acquisitions from asource other than the publisher or approved bookstores se......
-
Censorship of Mail: the Prisoner's Right To Communicate By Mail With the Outside World
...such action has been passed upon by some administrative agencyor tribunal outside the prison. See United States ex rel. Henson v.Myers, 244 F. Supp. 826, 828 (D. C. Pa. 1965) and note, 72 YaleL. Rev., supra. Moreover, the treating of a prison as an agency (see, e.g., McBride v. McCorkle, 13......