Sloan v. Southampton Correctional Center
This text of 476 F. Supp. 196 (Sloan v. Southampton Correctional Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael W. Sloan, an inmate confined at Mecklenburg Correctional Center, brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1843(3) (1970). The plaintiff alleges that on threat of solitary confinement he was forced to *197 get a hair cut by the administration at Southampton. For this alleged constitutional deprivation he seeks $6 million recovery in damages.
The plaintiff states only that he was told to get a hair cut or he would be sent to isolation. The Court notes that the Department of Corrections has recently begun to implement regulations governing the permissible length of hair. Any personal preference by prisoners that they be permitted to "do their own thing” raises no constitutional issue. The Courts are being trivialized by giving countenance to such frivolous claims. To grant leave to amend or to otherwise assist plaintiff would only further trivialize the operation of this Court and would divert attention away from those complaints which present truly serious claims. In a word, the claim is a nuisance and should be dealt with as such. Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed.
An appropriate order shall issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
476 F. Supp. 196, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sloan-v-southampton-correctional-center-vaed-1979.