Willis v. White, Misc. No. 1086.

• Decision Date: 13 March 1970
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 1086.
• Citation: 310 F. Supp. 205
• Parties: Albert WILLIS v. M. G. WHITE, Warden, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, and Dr. Chester Williams, Physician, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

310 F. Supp. 205

Albert WILLIS v. M. G. WHITE, Warden, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, and Dr. Chester Williams, Physician, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

Misc. No. 1086.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division.

March 13, 1970.

Albert Willis, in pro. per.

Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Parish of East Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, La., for respondents.

WEST, Chief Judge:

Petitioner, Albert Willis, applies to this Court for what he refers to as a writ of mandamus. His petition is based upon allegations that while confined to the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, he did not receive the medical attention to which he thought he was entitled. He asked to be transferred from the jail to the Earl K. Long Charity Hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and his request was refused. He alleges that he had pains in his groin and that he was, on several occasions, treated by the Coroner, Dr. Chester Williams, who informed him that he had "a small case of syphilis." He was given medication by Dr. Williams, but he, petitioner, thought that other treatment was required. After having been seen on numerous occasions by Dr. Williams, and while still receiving the medication prescribed by the doctor, petitioner continued to insist that he be transferred from the jail facilities to the hospital, which Dr. Williams apparently considered unnecessary. Following refusal by Dr. Williams to transfer petitioner to the hospital, petitioner continued to insist that he be given additional appointments to see Dr. Williams. Following a refusal by Dr. Williams to see the petitioner in connection with his request, petitioner filed this complaint for a "writ of mandamus" saying that his constitutional right to be free from "cruel and unusual punishment" had been violated.

Petitioner's claim is without merit.

First of all, Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishes the "writ of mandamus." However, even though the writ is abolished, the Court can give the same relief that would be called for by mandamus by using other methods provided by law. Rule 81(b) F.R.C.P.

While habeas corpus is not available to prisoners who are complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration, they may, however, bring an action under the Civil Rights Act. Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (CA 5-1969); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (CA 2-1967). The Court has the power, and indeed the duty, to consider petitioner's complaint even though the petition may be mislabeled. As was stated in Roberts v. Pegelow, 313 F.2d 548 (CA 4-1963):

"Unlearned inmates of penal institutions, * * * are usually ignorant of the legal niceties of the procedural rules in the courts. If one presents in his own behalf a petition which clearly merits some relief, he ought not to fail entirely because he misconceives the nature of the proceeding or mislabels his petition."

Thus the Court will consider this a request for relief under the Civil Rights Act.

In United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 323 F.2d 410 (CA 7-1963), the Court said:

"State prison officials must of necessity be vested with a wide degree of discretion in determining the nature and character of medical treatment to be afforded state prisoners. It is not the function of federal courts to interfere with the conduct of state officials in carrying out such duties under state

...