Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm

George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the N.J. State Prison Farm, 441 F.2d 1154 (3d Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-05-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • transfer from one wing of New Jersey State Prison at Rahway to another wing and consequent change of prison jobs
  • transfer of a state prisoner from one wing of a prison to another, the consequent change of prison jobs, and the consequent decrease in the prisoner’s opportunity to earn good time credits, did not involve any federally protected rights

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed George Hanvey v. Warren Pinto, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
20 opinions
HANVEY v. PINTO,441 F.2d 1154(3rd Cir. 1971)
George HANVEY, Appellant v. Warren PINTO, Superintendent of the New Jersey
State Prison Farm et al.
No. 19168.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted on Briefs March 19, 1971.
Decided May 7, 1971.
Page 1155
George Hanvey, pro se.

George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, by Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N.J., for appellees.
Before BIGGS and KALODNER, Circuit Judges and WHIPPLE, District Judge.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the district judge who found the action failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the time the action was dismissed Hanvey was a prisoner at the New Jersey State Prison at Rahway. The complaint is brought under the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and42 U.S.C. § 1983and it seeks to remedy the alleged arbitrary and unconstitutional withholding of good time credits by prison officials who transferred Hanvey from one prison job to another, which afforded him less of an opportunity to earn good time credits.

While it is essential to prove in any action brought under42 U.S.C. § 1983that federally protected rights have been violated, this court cannot conclude that the transfer of an inmate of a state prison from one wing to another and the consequent change of prison jobs involved any federally protected rights. Discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervision of federal courts unless such actions are so severe as to require constitutional protections. Ford v. Board of Managers of N.J. State Prison,407 F.2d 937(3d Cir. 1969); Gurczynski v. Yeager,339 F.2d 884(3d Cir. 1964). In addition, the alleged denial of good time credit as evidenced in this case is a far cry from those "cruel" and "inhuman" acts which cross the imaginary line from permitted to prohibited types of prison discipline. See, Trop v. Dulles,356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Burns v. Swenson,430 F.2d 771(8th Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom,416 F.2d 449(2d Cir. 1969); Wright v. McMann,387 F.2d 519(2d Cir. 1967).

The order of the district court dismissing the appellant's action will be affirmed.