Pierce v. LaVallee

Second Circuit

Pierce v. LaVallee

319 F.2d 844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 1963

DocketNo. 388, Docket 27598

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 319 F.2d 844 (Pierce v. LaVallee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pierce v. LaVallee, 319 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from Judge Brennan’s second dismissal of their action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court’s first dismissal (unreported) was reversed by us because it had been entered without taking testimony, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 233. The present order was made after a very extensive trial. While inmates at Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, plaintiffs were leaders of the “Muslim Brotherhood” — a self-organized and self-styled group having as its avowed object the study and furtherance [845]*845of Islam, but which also had overtones of secrecy and intrigue. When the prison officials discovered the existence of this organization, they disciplined the three plaintiffs for “agitating.” The district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that their punishment resulted from their religious beliefs was not clearly erroneous; and so we must affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from Judge Brennan’s second dismissal of their action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court’s first dismissal (unreported) was reversed by us because it had been entered without taking testimony, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 233. The present order was made after a very extensive trial. While inmates at Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, plaintiffs were leaders of the “Muslim Brotherhood” — a self-organized and self-styled group having as its avowed object the study and furtherance [845]*845of Islam, but which also had overtones of secrecy and intrigue. When the prison officials discovered the existence of this organization, they disciplined the three plaintiffs for “agitating.” The district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that their punishment resulted from their religious beliefs was not clearly erroneous; and so we must affirm.

Affirmed.

Henry E. Walker v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Raymond X. Thomas v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, George 6x-Edward Nixon v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, William C. X. Rindgo, Jr. v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Armstead D. Gould v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Robert X. Scriber v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Roland X. Ghee v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Robert II X-Gray v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden and M. J. Elliott, Assistant Warden, Atlanta Federal Penitentiary

360 F.2d 66 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)

Walker v. Blackwell

360 F.2d 66 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)

Martin X. Sostre v. Paul D. McGinnis Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Andwalter H. Wilkins, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York, William Samarion and Thomas L. Bratcher, on Behalf of Themselves and Allothers Similarly Situated v. Paul D. McGinnis Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Andwalter H. Wilkins, Warden of Attica State Prison, Attica, New York

334 F.2d 906 (Second Circuit, 1964)

Sostre v. McGinnis

334 F.2d 906 (Second Circuit, 1964)

James Pierce v. J. E. Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Martin T. Sostre v. J. E. Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, William Samarion v. J. E. Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York

319 F.2d 844 (Second Circuit, 1963)