United States v. Ragen

• Decision Date: 06 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 11756.,11756.
• Citation: 237 F.2d 953
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. George ATTERBURY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph E. RAGEN, Warden, Illinois Penitentiary, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

237 F.2d 953 (1956)

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. George ATTERBURY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph E. RAGEN, Warden, Illinois Penitentiary, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11756.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

November 6, 1956.

George Atterbury, Joliet, Ill., for appellant.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, A. Zola Groves, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellees.

Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and FINNEGAN and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.

DUFFY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq. He asserts that he is now and for some time past has been imprisoned in the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, Illinois. Defendant Ragen is the Warden of the Penitentiary, and the other defendants are officers and guards at that institution. Plaintiff charges that as a result of a conspiracy, and acting under the color of state law, defendants, on various dates in 1954 and 1955 cruelly and violently beat and assaulted plaintiff with a dangerous weapon inflicting physical injuries. Plaintiff asserts that he has been deprived of his rights, privileges and immunities to be secure from cruel and inhuman punishment, and has been deprived of his civil rights. He sets forth verbatim in the complaint the provisions of § 1983, Title 42. He demands judgment in the sum of $200,000.00.

Under the belief that plaintiff had made an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court appointed an attorney to represent him. Thereafter, said attorney informed the Court the pending action was in fact one for damages in a civil suit and requested that he be permitted to withdraw from the case. The Court granted this request. Thereafter the Court, on its own motion, dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed to this Court in forma pauperis.

The brief in this case was prepared by the plaintiff. In it he amplifies and gives many details as to vicious beatings which he alleges he received at the hands of the various defendants. He complains that he was placed in solitary confinement in "the hole" for two months without clothes or blankets, and that for a period of five days he was deprived of any food. He also alleged that he had been denied mail including a copy of the constitution of Illinois sent to him at his request by the Secretary of State. Strictly speaking, these allegations are not a part of the complaint, but in view of the summary manner in which the complaint was dismissed in the District Court, and in view of Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that a party may amend his pleadings once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served, we shall consider that if plaintiff had been given the opportunity, he would have amended his complaint to include these allegations. In fact, plaintiff asserts in his brief that Warden Ragen refused to mail out an amended petition (complaint) which he had prepared.

It would make no difference in the disposition of the issues before us whether we give consideration to the additional allegations set forth in plaintiff's brief. The incidents cited are of the same general nature and description as those alleged in the complaint. In either case, it is clear that the alleged tortious conduct of defendants was and is contrary to the laws of Illinois. In our view, such charges of aggression by state prison officials and guards, in spite of the general assertion that they were acting under color of state law, do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the federal Civil Rights Act. Ortega v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 561, certiorari denied 349 U.S. 940, 75 S.Ct. 786, 99 L. Ed. 1268; Jennings v. Nester, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 153, certiorari denied 349 U.S. 958, 75 S.Ct. 888, 99 L.Ed. 1281. As we said in the Jennings case, 217 F.2d at page 155, "The common law provides adequate actions for damages against errant law enforcement officials."

Plaintiff relies upon and quotes extensively from Johnson v. Dye, Warden, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 250. However, this case was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in 338 U.S. 864, 70 S.Ct. 146, 94 L.Ed. 530, rehearing denied 338 U.S. 896, 70 S.Ct. 238, 94 L.Ed. 551. This Supreme Court ruling was approved and followed in Sweeney v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86, 88, 73 S.Ct. 139, 97 L.Ed. 114. In the Sweeney case petitioner was a fugitive from an Alabama prison. He complained of shocking brutalities suffered in that prison, and alleged such conduct would be continued by prison authorities should he be returned. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Ohio, invoking the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court said the petitioner must test the unconstitutionality of his treatment in the courts of Alabama, and held that the United States District Court in Ohio properly dismissed the application for a writ of habeas corpus on its face.

We are somewhat concerned at the ever-increasing number of applications for habeas corpus and suits brought under the Civil Rights Act which are filed in the federal courts in this Circuit by prisoners in state penal institutions, where the basis of the complaint is the alleged brutal treatment by prison officials or other complaints with reference to the rules and regulations pertaining to prison discipline. For the most part such applications and suits are futile for the reasons hereinafter stated.

We think it is advisable to quote from some of our previous decisions to demonstrate why federal courts have an extremely limited area in which they may act pertaining to the treatment of prisoners confined to state penal institutions.

In Siegel v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 785 where the prisoner claimed he had been placed in solitary confinement and his typewriter confiscated, we stated, at page 788: "The Government of the United States is not concerned with, nor has it power to control or regulate the internal discipline of the penal institutions of its constituent states."

In United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR, 7 Cir., 209 F.2d 105, the prisoner complained that he was discriminated against as to certain radio programs because he was a negro and complained because the warden would not permit him to submit various literary scripts to publishing companies. We said, at page 107: "* * * Federal courts will rarely intervene to interfere with the conduct of State officials carrying out their duties under State laws. Kelly v. Dowd, 7 Cir., 140 F.2d 81." We further stated, at page 107: "Inmates of State penitentiaries should realize that prison officials are vested with wide discretion in safeguarding prisoners committed to their custody. Discipline reasonably maintained in State prisons is not under the supervisory direction of federal courts. Kelly v. Dowd, supra. `We think that it is well settled that it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined.' Stroud v. Swope, Warden, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 850, 851. A prisoner may not approve of prison rules and regulations, but under all ordinary circumstances that is no basis for coming into a federal court seeking relief even though he may claim that the restrictions placed upon his activities are in violation of his constitutional rights."

In the accompanying case of Morris v. Igoe, 7 Cir., 209 F.2d 108, Morris complained that he had subscribed to certain Chicago newspapers, but the warden censored same by cutting out stories and portions of the papers. Morris claimed this was a violation of his constitutional rights. We held to the contrary.

In Ortega v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 561, at page 562 we said: "This court has been hesitant to interfere with the administration of state penal institutions citing Morris cases. It has been held that withholding a prisoner's mail is purely an administrative matter for the warden to control citing cases. Certainly the control of mail going to and from inmates is an important part of administration and maintenance of discipline in a large prison. The mere withholding of a letter from a prisoner is not, of itself, violative of plaintiff's federal rights."

In United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 213 F.2d 294, the prisoner sought relief under the Civil Rights Act claiming that the warden had unreasonably refused to permit him to submit inventions to the Federal Government. We stated, at page 295: "* * * In Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 483, 484, a prisoner in the Texas State Penitentiary filed an action for damages and an injunction under the Civil Rights Laws alleging that the prison officials had conspired to and did enforce a set of rules which required censorship of his mail, prevented him from reading law books or making notes, and prevented him from staying in his cell for the purpose of attending to `"emergency legal matters."' However, the court there held, 197 F.2d at page 485, that the plaintiff while a prisoner did not have `unrestricted freedom in the receipt and transmission of mail', and that, therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing his petition. The Supreme Court said in Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356: `Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.'"

In Miles v. Armstrong, 7 Cir., 207 F.2d 284, 287, the plaintiff brought an action under the Civil Rights Act against defendants, some of whom were officials of the village of East Chicago Heights, and other defendants were private individuals. We stated at page 287: "* * * However, we do not reach the constitutional question, See Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651, at page 662, 71 S.Ct. 937, at page 942, 95 L.Ed. 1253, for we think that the rights of...