Pierce v. LaVallee

212 F. Supp. 865, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3322
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedMay 11, 1962
DocketCiv. 7813, 7815 and 7816
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 212 F. Supp. 865 (Pierce v. LaVallee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pierce v. LaVallee, 212 F. Supp. 865, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3322 (N.D.N.Y. 1962).

Opinion

BRENNAN, Chief Judge.

The background of these actions, brought to declare and enforce the plaintiffs’ rights pertaining to the exercise of their religious beliefs, is found in the decision reported under the name of Pierce v. LaVallee, 293 F.2d 233. The three issues raised in the plaintiffs’ complaints were disposed of as follows.

The plaintiffs’ right to purchase and possess the Quran was disposed of in the above decision. Plaintiffs’ contention as to their right to contact a “spiritual ad-visor” was abandoned. The third claim for relief was remanded to this court in the following language. “ * * * the cases (are) remanded for consideration of the claims that plaintiffs were disciplined solely because of their religious beliefs.” Pierce v. LaVallee, supra, page 236.

The issue, thus remanded, has been tried to the court. Considerable latitude was afforded the plaintiffs in the matter of the evidence received, some of which related to the contention that plaintiffs had been deprived of their right to contact a spiritual advisor. The court took this position for the reason that petitioners indicated that they desired to withdraw their previous abandonment of that issue. Decision as to whether or not such issue would be determined by this court was withheld at the trial and is now refused in view of the decision of Brown v. McGinnis, 10 N.Y.2d 531. This decision will then be limited to the question as to the discipline of the plaintiffs solely because of their religious beliefs, as indicated in the decision of the Circuit Court above referred to.

The plaintiffs are state court prisoners. At the pertinent times involved, they were confined at Clinton Prison, Dannemora N. Y., by reason of state court commitments. The defendant, at such times, was the Warden of Clinton Prison and charged with the overall duty of supervision of that institution and with the care, custody and safety of the inmates thereof. A considerable portion of the factual background involved in this litigation applies equally to each of the three plaintiffs and same is set out below prior to any narration of facts which are particularly applicable to the individual plaintiffs.

On August 15, 1959, disciplinary action was taken by the prison authorities against each of the three plaintiffs. The action was taken based upon identical reports of a Guard Captain which in substance charged each plaintiff with “agitating”. Such reports consisted of a statement to the effect that each plaintiff was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood actively engaged in its activities, *867 the organization being a source of racial hatred and advocates the use of force as a last resort. In accordance with prison procedure, each of the plaintiffs appeared before the Principal Keeper of the prison and after discussion of the report, a judgment was made depriving each plaintiff of sixty days good time and assigning each to segregation. Each plaintiff claims that the above action was taken and the discipline inflicted solely as punishment for his religious belief and constituted a deprivation of his constitutional right to the exercise of his religion.

Clinton Prison at the times involved had an inmate population of about twenty-two hundred persons of various racial and religious backgrounds or beliefs. About thirty of such inmates were recognized as Muslims. The details of their religious belief were unknown to the prison authorities. There has been in existence at the prison for a number of years a system whereby plots of land in the prison yard of varying dimensions are assigned to inmates for their use during specific hours when yard privileges are available. The plots, thus allotted, about 300 in number, are known as “courts” and are put to use by the assigned inmates for various recreational or educational purposes. One or more of such courts were assigned to and controlled by members of the Muslim organization. This court was enlarged from time to time by the absorption of a neighboring court so that in June 1959, four of said courts had been combined into one large area which was used by members of the organization for their purposes. It is evident that the use of said courts by inmates was encouraged or permitted as an outlet for inmate activities.

In the early part of the year 1959, the activities upon the Muslim court came to the attention of prison officials. In the spring of that year, the prison authorities directed surveillance of the Muslim court and a report by the yard guard of activities therein. The testimony of the guards indicated a more or less continuous activity within the Muslim court. A larger number of inmates than was usually found gathered at that area and were often addressed by some individual. It was observed that some of those present wore black caps, not usually worn by inmates. It was noted especially for a period prior to August 10, 1959 that upon the approach of a guard to the Muslim court, all conversation and activity ceased so that the guard was unable to hear what was being said. When the guard moved out of hearing distance, conversation resumed and the speaker apparently received the full attention of the group. This action was interpreted by prison officials as indicating discussions, the nature of which was purposely withheld from the prison authorities, which indicated a secretiveness or condition of unrest. On August 10, 1959, the prison authorities made an examination of the homemade “locker” located on the Muslim court. There was found therein and taken therefrom literature and documents relating to the religion of Islam and the Muslim movement. These documents were examined by prison authorities. It was found that there existed an organization known as the “Muslim Brotherhood”. This organization had a written constitution which apparently came into existence about April 1959. This instrument is set out as an appendix to this decision. After the documents, so seized, had been examined and appraised by prison officials, the charges, above referred to, were made and the discipline invoked.

Prior to the occurrences of April 10, 1959 and as early as February or March of that year, members of the Muslim group had made oral request for thé setting aside of facilities within the prison where they could gather, pray together and conduct their religious services. On March 23, 1959, a proceeding was started in the state court, instituted by Sostre, to require that such facilities be made available. In the early part of July 1959, requests were submitted by the three plaintiffs for permission to purchase a certain edition of the Quran. These requests were refused and this *868 particular controversy was disposed of in the former decision of the Circuit Court. It may be added that the final disposition of such request was not made until August 25, 1959 after the seizure of the literature on August 10, 1959. Additional facts, particularly pertinent to each of the three plaintiffs, are set out below.

PIERCE

Pierce was received at Clinton Prison on January 25, 1959. At that time his professed religious faith was that of a Muslim. When he was first received into the prison system, he was registered as a member of another faith. He was assigned to work, under guard, outside the prison walls and had earned good time. He was a member of the Muslim group. He was transferred from Clinton Prison to Auburn Prison on January 25, 1961. He remained in segregation from August 15 until the time of his transfer..

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

Related

O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz
482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court, 1987)
United States ex rel. Sostre v. Festa
513 F.2d 1313 (Second Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Festa
513 F.2d 1313 (Second Circuit, 1975)
Roberts v. Pepersack
256 F. Supp. 415 (D. Maryland, 1966)
Walker v. Blackwell
360 F.2d 66 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)
Desmond v. Blackwell
235 F. Supp. 246 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1964)
Sostre v. McGinnis
334 F.2d 906 (Second Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 F. Supp. 865, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-lavallee-nynd-1962.