Rudolph Hudson v. James A. Rhodes

579 F.2d 46
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided July 31, 1978·No. 77-3019·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Three male inmates of Ohio prisons and two women engaged to marry inmates filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to enjoin enforcement of an unwritten policy of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections which forbids the marriage of incarcerated persons. District Judge Don J. Young dismissed the action and plaintiffs appeal.

We affirm on authority of Johnson v. Rockefeller, 365 F.Supp. 377 (S.D.N.Y.1973), aff’d sub nom. (without opinion) Butler v. Wilson, Governor of New York, 415 U.S. 953, 94 S.Ct. 1479, 39 L.Ed.2d 569 (1974); see also Polmaskitch v. United States, 436 F.Supp. 527 (W.D.Okl.1977).

Affirmed.

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

Rudolph Hudson v. James A. Rhodes, 579 F.2d 46 (6th Cir. 1978).

579 F.2d 46 (Rudolph Hudson v. James A. Rhodes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ronald Bradbury v. Louie L. Wainwright
718 F.2d 1538 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
Bradbury v. Wainwright
538 F. Supp. 377 (M.D. Florida, 1982)
Wool v. Hogan
505 F. Supp. 928 (D. Vermont, 1981)
Department of Corrections v. Roseman
390 So. 2d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Salisbury v. List
501 F. Supp. 105 (D. Nevada, 1980)