George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm

Third Circuit

George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm

441 F.2d 1154, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10320

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1971

Docket19168

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 441 F.2d 1154 (George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm, 441 F.2d 1154, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10320 (3d Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the district judge who found the action failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the time the action was dismissed Hanvey was a prisoner at the New Jersey State Prison at Rahway. The complaint is brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and it seeks to remedy the alleged arbitrary and unconstitutional withholding of good time credits by prison officials who transferred Hanvey from one prison job to another, which afforded him less of an opportunity to earn good time credits.

While it is essential to prove in any action • brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that federally protected rights have been violated, this court cannot eon-elude that the transfer of an inmate of a state prison from one wing to another and the consequent change of prison jobs involved any federally protected rights. Discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervision of federal courts unless such actions are so severe as to require constitutional protections. Ford v. Board of Managers of N. J. State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1969); Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1964). In addition, the alleged denial of good time credit as evidenced in this case is a far cry from those “cruel” and “inhuman” acts which cross the imaginary line from permitted to prohibited types of prison discipline. See, Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1969); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1967).

The order of the district court dismissing the appellant’s action will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the district judge who found the action failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the time the action was dismissed Hanvey was a prisoner at the New Jersey State Prison at Rahway. The complaint is brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and it seeks to remedy the alleged arbitrary and unconstitutional withholding of good time credits by prison officials who transferred Hanvey from one prison job to another, which afforded him less of an opportunity to earn good time credits.

While it is essential to prove in any action • brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that federally protected rights have been violated, this court cannot eon-elude that the transfer of an inmate of a state prison from one wing to another and the consequent change of prison jobs involved any federally protected rights. Discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervision of federal courts unless such actions are so severe as to require constitutional protections. Ford v. Board of Managers of N. J. State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1969); Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1964). In addition, the alleged denial of good time credit as evidenced in this case is a far cry from those “cruel” and “inhuman” acts which cross the imaginary line from permitted to prohibited types of prison discipline. See, Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1969); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1967).

The order of the district court dismissing the appellant’s action will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 F.2d 1154, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-hanvey-v-warren-pinto-superintendent-of-the-new-jersey-state-ca3-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack