Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Arden Francis Blanks, Jr. v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Etc., and Courtland C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary
Arden Francis Blanks, Jr. v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Etc., & Courtland C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Va. State Penitentiary, 409 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1969)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1969-04-11
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- finding that the medical care need not be the best possible care, it only must be “reasonable” care
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Arden Francis Blanks, Jr. v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Etc., and Courtland C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 37 opinions
BLANKS v. CUNNINGHAM,409 F.2d 220(4th Cir. 1969)
Arden Francis BLANKS, Jr., Appellant, v. W.K. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., etc., and
Courtland C. Peyton, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary,
Appellees.
No. 12569.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 5, 1969.
Decided April 11, 1969.
Edward J. White, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, and Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
In Landman v. Peyton,370 F.2d 135(4th Cir.),cert. denied,385 U.S. 881,87 S.Ct. 168,17 L.Ed.2d 108(1966), complaints concerning general conditions in the prison's maximum security building were reviewed after a plenary hearing in the district court. We agree with the district judge that many of Blanks' allegations are similar to those considered inLandmanand need not be relitigated.
The pleadings, however, raise three issues, unresolved byLandman,on which Blanks is entitled to be heard. They are: (1) on two occasions Blanks was punished for requesting stationery to write to his attorney; (2) he was punished for failing to stand up for a count while he was suffering an uncontrollable epileptic seizure; and (3) guards denied him medical attention for his epilepsy.
Wardens and guards may not abridge or impair a prisoner's access to the courts, Ex parte Hull,312 U.S. 546,549,61 S.Ct. 640,85 L.Ed. 1034(1941), nor may they deny him reasonable opportunities for communicating with an attorney to test the validity of his conviction and the constitutionality of the punishment to which he is subjected. McCloskey v. Maryland,337 F.2d 72,74(4th Cir. 1964) (dictum).
A prisoner is entitled to reasonable medical care. Hirons v. Director,351 F.2d 613(4th Cir. 1965). Usually the propriety of an evidential hearing on this issue can be determined by examining the prisoner's allegations in the light of the prison's medical records. Frequently a hearing is unnecessary, but here the medical records do not reflect the action of the guards, and a hearing should be conducted. Cf. Edwards v. Duncan,355 F.2d 993(4th Cir. 1966).
The judgment of the district court is vacated, and this case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.Page 223
- This is Blanks' second appeal. Initially the district judge, treating his application as a complaint for a mandatory injunction, dismissed it without requiring an answer. On appeal this order was vacated, and the action was remanded for determination of the necessity for a hearing after officials of the penitentiary filed their answer. Blanks v. Cunningham, No. 10,661, mem. dec. (4th Cir., Sept. 21, 1966). Upon receipt of the answer and a copy of Blanks' prison record, the district judge decided an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary and dismissed the complaint on the pleadings. ↩