Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Ronald J. Thomas, C-7242 v. Joseph R. Brierley, Supt., S.C.I.P., and Charles Wehrle, Deputy Supt.

481 F.2d 660

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-06-29
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • right to visitation may not be denied on the basis of inmate’s race
  • where refusal to allow visits on a basis of race was struck down
  • remanding for consideration of claims properly raised

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ronald J. Thomas, C-7242 v. Joseph R. Brierley, Supt., S.C.I.P., and Charles Wehrle, Deputy Supt.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
20 opinions
THOMAS v. BRIERLEY,481 F.2d 660(3rd Cir. 1973)
RONALD J. THOMAS, #C-7242, APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH R. BRIERLEY, SUPT., S.C. I.
P., AND CHARLES WEHRLE, DEPUTY SUPT., ET AL.
No. 72-1870.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted May 18, 1973.
Decided June 29, 1973.
Page 661
Ronald J. Thomas, pro se.

Donetta W. Ambrose, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Pa., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Before VAN DUSEN, GIBBONS and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
[1] OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
[2] This action challenges an August 3, 1972, district court decree dismissing an in forma pauperis action as frivolous pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

[3] The Complaint alleges a violation of42 U.S.C. § 1983,1resulting from the denial in July 1972 to plaintiff, a state prisoner, of the privilege to visit with a friend, to whom he had sent the required visiting pass "granted any inmate in the Pennsylvania institutional system." It is alleged that "it is [plaintiff's] belief" that such denial was "directed at him in an effort to harass and discourage the [named] visitor from ever attempting to visit him." Subsequently, petitioner received "no visits." Finally, the Complaint alleges that "the action by the officials was merely the unwarranted result of the way they the officials subject the Black inmate and his family to harassment and degradation."

[4] Such allegations must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); United States ex rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker, 471 F.2d 1197 (3d Cir. 1973). A refusal to allow a prisoner visitors because of his race would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.See, e. g.,Rowland v. Wolf,336 F. Supp. 257(D.Neb. 1971). And it is conceivable that the denial of visitation privileges without a reasonable justification might amount to cruel and unusual punishment.SeeAlmond v. Kent,459 F.2d 200, 204 (4th Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Raymond v. Rundle, 276 F. Supp. 637 (E.D.Pa. 1967); Hollen, Emerging Prisoners' Rights, 33 Ohio St.L.J. 1, 64-68 (1972). At the minimum, the district court should direct service on the defendants and require the filing of a motion or a responsive pleading to the Complaint.SeeHaines v. Kerner,supra.

[5] For the foregoing reasons, the district court order of August 3, 1972, will be vacated and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.Page 682
  1. "Every person who, under color of any . . . regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen . . . to the deprivation of any rights [or] privileges . . . secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable . . . in an action at law, suit in equity . . . for redress." ↩