Victor H. Gurczynski v. Howard H. Yeager, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, and George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg State Prison Farm

339 F.2d 884, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3531
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedDecember 18, 1964
Docket14987_1
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 339 F.2d 884 (Victor H. Gurczynski v. Howard H. Yeager, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, and George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg 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
Victor H. Gurczynski v. Howard H. Yeager, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, and George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg State Prison Farm, 339 F.2d 884, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3531 (3d Cir. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the complaint in this cause by the district court. The complaint alleges violation of appellant’s civil rights by the prison authorities of the State of New Jersey. Specifically appellant states that he was not given psychiatric treatment as had been suggested by the sentencing state judge. He also says that his request to be transferred from a New Jersey state prison farm to the state prison at Trenton was not granted. Finally, he complains that after he became intoxicated and escaped from the prison farm, he was punished by being placed in solitary confinement on a restricted diet in the state prison itself. The district judge allowed the complaint to be filed without prepayment of costs. After examining it, the court dismissed it as being without merit. We are convinced that such course was proper.

The face of the complaint does not present any involvement of appellant’s federal rights. What is alleged concerns New Jersey state prison operation and discipline. Discipline reasona- *885 íbly maintained in those prisons is not under the supervisory direction of the federal courts. Kelly v. Dowd, 140 F.2d 81 (7 Cir. 1944). There is nothing in the circumstances related to indicate any reasonable basis for interference with the state authority, even though appellant’s -claim is under the guise of violation of his constitutional rights. United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR, 209 F.2d 105 (7 Cir. 1953). See also Curtis v. Jacques, 130 F.Supp. 920 (D.C. W.D.Mich.N.D.1954); Grove v. Smyth, 169 F.Supp. 852 (D.C.E.D.Va.1958); Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9 Cir. 1961).

The judgment of the district court will ibe affirmed.

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

Related

Watkins v. Johnson
375 F. Supp. 1005 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Buszka v. Johnson
351 F. Supp. 771 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Marnin v. Pinto
463 F.2d 583 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Braxton v. Carlson
340 F. Supp. 999 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Mayberry v. Maroney
337 F. Supp. 601 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Mertz v. Pinto
343 F. Supp. 374 (D. New Jersey, 1971)
John Madden v. New Jersey State Parole Board
438 F.2d 1189 (Third Circuit, 1971)
United States ex rel. Pope v. Williams
326 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
State v. Rydzewski
271 A.2d 907 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
Gross v. Sarver
307 F. Supp. 1105 (E.D. Arkansas, 1970)
United States ex rel. Keen v. Mazurkiewicz
306 F. Supp. 483 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1969)
Howard v. Craven
306 F. Supp. 730 (C.D. California, 1969)
Handley v. Page
279 F. Supp. 878 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1968)
Newell v. Page
280 F. Supp. 203 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1968)
Negrich v. Hohn
379 F.2d 213 (Third Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 F.2d 884, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-h-gurczynski-v-howard-h-yeager-principal-keeper-new-jersey-ca3-1964.