Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Matthew Massimo and on the Behalf of F. L. (Frank) Jones, and Robert Meyer v. The Warden, J. D. Henderson, of the U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia

468 F.2d 1209

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-11-08
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • concluding that a pro se inmate could not bring a petition for equitable relief on behalf of his fellow inmates
  • holding pro se inmate could not assert claim for equitable relief on 4 behalf of fellow inmates
  • affirming that an inmate “is not qualified to file an action for the release of his fellow inmates from solitary confinement”
  • finding that an inmate could not bring an action for release of his fellow inmates from solitary confinement
  • affirming dismissal of the portion of petitioner’s complaint seeking relief on behalf of fellow inmates
  • affirming dismissal of the portion of prisoner’s complaint that sought relief on behalf of prisoner’s fellow inmates
  • affirming dismissal of portion of petitioner’s complaint seeking relief on behalf of fellow inmates

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Matthew Massimo and on the Behalf of F. L. (Frank) Jones, and Robert Meyer v. The Warden, J. D. Henderson, of the U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
40 opinions
MASSIMO v. WARDEN, HENDERSON,468 F.2d 1209(5th Cir. 1972)
MATTHEW MASSIMO AND ON THE BEHALF OF F.L. (FRANK) JONES, AND ROBERT MEYER,
PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, v. THE WARDEN, J.D. HENDERSON, ET AL., OF THE U.S.
PENITENTIARY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-2601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 8, 1972.
Page 1210
Matthew Massimo, pro se.

John W. Stokes, U.S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This appeal derives from an order of the district court dismissing the petition of Matthew Massimo for mandamus and injunctive relief. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.1

[2] Appellant, an inmate of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, filed a complaint in the court below seeking the release of two fellow inmates from solitary confinement and an injunction against any future use of the solitary confinement cells known as "sidepockets." He alleged that he and the two inmates were placed in the "sidepockets" for being uncooperative. He complained that these cells are not provided with water for drinking or bathing; the cells are without light, some without ventilation, and all are excessively hot (above 100 °); and that while in solitary confinement they were denied their request for writing materials to complain of those conditions to the courts. The district court dismissed the complaint finding that appellant "is not admitted to the practice of law before this court and does not allege that he is at all involved in the action or otherwise justify his standing to bring such an action."

[3] Although the district court was correct in holding that appellant is not qualified to file an action for the release of his fellow inmates from solitary confinement, the court was clearly erroneous in finding that appellant did not allege that he is involved in the action. Appellant clearly stated that he seeks to enjoin future use of the "sidepockets" in their allegedly unconstitutional conditions. These alleged conditions raise sufficient constitutional issues requiring inquiry to determine their accuracy. Haines v. Kerner, 1972,404 U.S. 519,92 S.Ct. 594,30 L.Ed.2d 652; Cruz v. Beto, 1972,405 U.S. 319,92 S.Ct. 1079,31 L.Ed.2d 263; Simon v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1972,464 F.2d 1038[1972]; Williams v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1972,461 F.2d 1080. We therefore affirm the dismissal of that aspect of the appellant's complaint seeking relief in behalf of his fellow inmates and vacate and remand for a factual determination as to whether the further use of the "sidepockets" is violative of appellant's constitutional rights.

[4] Vacated and remanded.Page 1252
  1. It is appropriate to dispose of this prose case summarily, pursuant to this Court's Local Rule 9(c)(2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969,412 F.2d 981. ↩