Williams v. Ward, 75 Civ. 3839(MP).

• Citation: 404 F. Supp. 170
• Decision Date: 02 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75 Civ. 3839(MP).,75 Civ. 3839(MP).
• Parties: Michael WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin WARD, Commissioner of Correctional Services, and Correction Officer Blades, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

404 F. Supp. 170

Michael WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin WARD, Commissioner of Correctional Services, and Correction Officer Blades, Defendants.

No. 75 Civ. 3839(MP).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

December 2, 1975.

Michael Williams, pro se.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, New York City by Joan P. Scannell, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

POLLACK, District Judge.

Defendant moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) Fed.R.Civ.P. to dismiss this state court prisoner's civil rights action.

Plaintiff, an inmate serving a life sentence in the Eastern Correctional Facility in Naponach, New York as a result of a conviction of second degree murder, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged deprivation of his First Amendment, due process and equal protection rights.

For his first claim, he contends that as an indigent prisoner he should be entitled to mail and has been refused the mailing of his letters without providing any postage. For his second claim, he asserts the right to send and receive correspondence from other unrelated inmates without prior permission of the Superintendent of the prison. The complaint alleges two isolated instances in which prison officials allegedly refused to deliver letters sent to plaintiff allegedly relating to a letter on "jailhouse lawyers" that was published in the Fortune Society's newsletter. According to the complaint, a notice sent to plaintiff declared that the reason for the withholding of the letters was that the sender was neither a co-defendant nor a relative. The source is not challenged factually by plaintiff.

As redress for the denial of the presumed unconditional rights he asserts, plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief but no money damages. With respect to the second claim, he seeks a declaration that paragraph three of section two of New York State Department of Correctional Services' Administrative Bulletin #20, which establishes the prior permission system mentioned, is unconstitutional.¹

Even if plaintiff's papers are viewed in their most liberal light², plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for the deprivation of constitutional rights. Argentine v. McGinnis, 311 F.Supp. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).

Neither the prison official's alleged refusal to mail letters without postage from plaintiff³ nor their alleged refusal to deliver two letters from other unrelated inmates without special permission from the Superintendent is such a "shocking deprivation of fundamental rights" as to invoke federal court intervention in the internal state prison administration. See Baldwin v. Smith, 446 F.2d 1043, 1044 (2d Cir. 1971); Birch v. Vincent, 368 F.Supp. 532, 534 (S.D.N.Y.1974). Absent any claim that permission was arbitrarily withheld, there is no necessary constitutional violation in the two isolated instances of alleged refusal to forward correspondence without the permission of the Superintendent from a prisoner to a person other than his attorneys, public officials or Courts. See Corby v. Conboy, 457 F.2d 251, 254 (2d Cir. 1972); Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 199-200 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied sub nom., Oswald v. Sostre, 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254 (1972); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F. Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961).

A prisoner has no more right to free postal service than does the ordinary citizen. In addition, the requirement of permission to correspond with other prisoners furthers the state's substantial interest in maintaining order in and preventing escape from the prisons and is a practice no broader than is necessary to the protection of a substantial governmental...