Wynn v. Alexander, 84-5450
| Decision Date | 16 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5450,84-5450 |
| Citation | 803 F.2d 723 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. WILLIAM FRANKLIN WYNN and WILLIAM KENNETH HARRIS, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. LAMAR ALEXANDER, et al., Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before: MARTIN and KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judges, and CHURCHILL, District Judge. *
krupansky, J.,
This is an appeal from the dismissal of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by two inmates of Tennessee's Brushy Mountain State Prison. The plaintiffs, William Franklin Wynn (Wynn) and William Kenneth Harris (Harris), filed their complaint and an amendment thereto pro se. As amended, the complaint constitutes a broad-ranging attack not only upon the level of due process plaintiffs were afforded after being placed in involuntary administrative segregation, but also upon the living conditions and practices to which they, as segregated inmates, were subjected at Brushy Mountain Prison.
The defendants, various prison officials of the State of Tennessee, filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on February 14, 1982. Following a hearing on the motion on May 4, 1984, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' case, and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amendment to the complaint.
Although the plaintiffs' motion was entitled as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and although one affidavit was submitted in support of the motion, the court did not rely on evidence in granting the defendants' motion. We will examine the district court's action as if the defendants' motion was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Furthermore, although the district court appointed trial counsel for the plaintiffs, it is clear that appointed counsel had little, if any, impact upon the proceedings in district court. Fairness to the plaintiffs requires that the complaint as amended be examined under the liberal standards applicable to pro se complaints.
For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the dismissal of the amended complaint, but determine that the plaintiffs should have been given leave to file another amendment to the complaint with respect to certain claims.
The plaintiffs were placed in involuntary administrative segregation after the associate warden learned through informants that the plaintiffs' physical safety might be endangered should they remain in the general prison population. The plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to confront the informants at the hearing and were not given a written, post-hearing statement of the board that reviewed the administrative segregation order. They did have the opportunity to consult with the resident adviser prior to the hearing. They made an oral presentation and were given the opportunity to present witnesses. The district judge correctly dismissed this aspect of the complaint in reliance on Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983).
Although they complained about the loss of the ability to earn good-time credits as an incident of administrative segregation, there is no claim in the complaint, amended complaint or motion to amend that previously earned credits were taken away. Because an amendment with respect to assignment to administrative segregation would be futile, the amended complaint which is authorized hereby to be filed may not raise issues concerning assignment to administrative segregation.
The complaint as amended raises issues concerning conditions of confinement in administrative segregation and access to courts while therein. These claims were dismissed because they are the subject matter of other litigation.
The claims involving conditions of confinement are being litigated in another case. Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F. Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn. 1982). Moreover, the plaintiffs do not dispute that they are named plaintiffs in a pending suit in the same district court in which this case was filed wherein virtually identical claims of denial of access are at issue.
Grubbs is a class action brought by "all present and future adult inmates committed to the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction." Grubbs, 552 F. Supp. at 1055. Among the conditions of Brushy Mountain under scrutiny in Grubbs are the housing facilities; the environmental conditions including the general maintenance of the prison, lighting and ventilation, and the sanitary conditions throughout the food service and food preparation areas; personal hygiene facilities; idleness; violence; and, the adequacy of health service. There is no indication in the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial