Vida v. Cage
| Citation | 385 F.2d 408 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 17501.,17501. |
| Parties | Ernest VIDA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. M. CAGE, Parole Officer, and Paul P. Sartwell, Warden, F. C. I., Milan, Michigan, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Ernest Vida, in pro. per.
Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., George G. Newman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS and CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order of the District Court dismissing Vida's complaint in which he prayed for an order allowing him to correspond with his co-defendants, who were serving state sentences in the Jackson, Michigan prison, and with other persons, and with his attorney, without censorship. Vida was confined at the time in the Federal Correctional Institution at Milan, Michigan, serving a five year sentence for violations of the Bankruptcy Act. He had pending in this Court an appeal from his conviction, and the judgment of conviction has since been affirmed. 370 F.2d 759, cert. denied 387 U.S. 910, 87 S.Ct. 1695, 18 L.Ed.2d 630 (1967). Vida has been transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, where he is presently confined1.
Vida attached as an exhibit to his complaint in the District Court a copy of a letter which he alleged was sent to the Warden at Milan, a copy of which was also sent to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. This letter is as follows:
The complaint further alleged that Vida had pending an appeal from a conviction in the Recorder's Court in Detroit,2 and the appeal to this Court hereinbefore mentioned, and that he needed information, statements, affidavits, etc. from his said co-defendants; that Michigan prison authorities permit such correspondence. It was further alleged that his letter to Warden Sartwell was not answered; and that the action of the prison authorities in preventing him from corresponding with other convicts, and from corresponding without censorship with his attorney, violated his constitutional rights.
It should be noted that the letter to the Warden, set forth above, did not name his attorney, but only his co-defendants who were in the state prison, as the persons with whom he desired to correspond. The complaint thus sought relief beyond that which was requested in the letter and the prison authorities have had no opportunity to consider it.
Furthermore, there is no allegation in the complaint that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Balson
...after remand, 515 F.2d 322, cert. denied sub nom., Andrade v. Hauck, 424 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1118, 47 L.Ed.2d 332 (1976); Vida v. Cage, 385 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1967). Defendants contend that the security measures at LSH are necessary to fulfill the state's duty to prevent escape, and to ensur......
-
Daniels v. Baer
...nom. McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974) (citing Putt v. Clark (N.D.Ga.1969) 297 F.Supp. 27; Vida v. Cage (6th Cir. 1967) 385 F.2d 408; In re Harrell (1970) 2 Cal.3d 675, 690, modified at 2 Cal.3d 911a, 87 Cal.Rptr. 504, 470 P.2d 640). Under Turner, prison officials may entire......
-
Bijeol v. Benson
...1078 (3rd Cir. 1973); Rivera v. Toft, 477 F.2d 534 (10th Cir. 1973); Paden v. United States, 430 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1970); Vida v. Cage, 385 F.2d 408 (6th Cir. 1967); Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966); McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.Okl.1970); Murphy v. Surgeon Gen......
-
Thomas v. State
...escape. We have no doubt that over the course of time some persons would take advantage of that opportunity." See also Vida v. Cage, 385 F.2d 408, 409 (6th Cir. 1967) ("In our opinion it was not unreasonable for the prison authorities to restrict Vida's communication with other convicts.");......