[Download] "Breeden v. Jackson" by United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Breeden v. Jackson
• Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Release Date : January 21, 1972
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 54 KB

Description

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge: Petitioner was a Virginia State prisoner. Claiming threats of bodily harm, he was transferred at his own request from the general prison population to maximum security.1 Since his transfer was by his own request, and since the prison authorities found no verification of the threat, petitioner was free to leave maximum security. He, however, chose to remain but filed in the District Court his petition for ""Peremptory Writ of Mandamus""2 complaining that the deprivations imposed on him in maximum security represented cruel and unusual punishment inhibited by the Eighth Amendment and claiming damages on account of such deprivations. With a single exception, the deprivations were the usual incidents of confinement in maximum security. There were no claims of mental abuse or corporal punishment. See Holt v. Sarver (D.C.Ark.1969) 300 F. Supp. 825, 828, affirmed and remanded for further proceedings, (8th Cir.) 442 F.2d 304. He makes no allegations ""of physical injuries suffered while in disciplinary confinement"" as in Haines v. Kerner (1971) 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652. Petitioner was not denied heat or forced to sleep nude on a concrete floor, as in Wright v. McMann (2d Cir. 1967) 387 F.2d 519, 521, and Hancock v. Avery (D.C.Tenn.1969) 301 F. Supp. 786, 789. His complaints, save for the one to be specially noted, related to limited recreational or exercise opportunities, the prison menu and restricted shaving and bathing privileges. The sole unusual claim in his petition is that, while confined in maximum security at his own request and not for disciplinary reasons, he suffered a denial of any opportunity for parole. This contention, however, is contrary to the undisputed record and may be disregarded. The State filed an affidavit establishing that prisoners confined at their own request in maximum security were not prejudiced in the consideration of their parole applications; and, to clinch this statement, it emphasized the petitioner has been released on parole. The District Court concluded on the basis of the undisputed record itself that the regulations of the prison's administration, challenged by the petitioner, covering persons voluntarily confined in maximum security, were not arbitrary or unreasonable and dismissed the petition.

PDF Books Download "Breeden v. Jackson" Online ePub Kindle