Douglas Gomes v. Anthony P. Travisono

bleeding. bodily injury, upon evi- and internal Based definition serious dence, say temporary bodily requested on we cannot instructions serious insanity. Addressing injury proven. has not ourselves first been requested instructions “assault the resulting argument Appellant’s final bodily injury,” in serious according is that his sentence to state attempted find such instructions illegal. agree. law was doWe Sec in terms of 18 define crime U.S.C. provides resulting tion 1153 that assault however, 1153, provides Section 114. § bodily injury punish serious is to be resulting bodily “assault serious ed applicable accordance injury” shall be defined accordance Appellant law. was convicted of what applicable state law. We therefore degree felony is a third Mexico, in New no error in the trial court’s find refusal being penalty imprisonment for not 114, subsequent to instruct on and its less than two years. nor more than ten on the instruction basis N.M.S.A. § The trial court sentenced him to ten 40A-3-5. years. This See, was error. Henry, State v. N.M. 434 P.2d Turning attention to the our (1967). Under New inde Mexico’s temporary. requested in instructions sentencing terminate theory, a sentence sanity, equally clear no error is in time, effect for the maximum sub refusing committed in was these instruc ject to Deats, reduction. State v. 83 N. Appellant presented tions. no medical 154,M. 489 P.2d 662 Any re Virtually evidence on the issue. duction in a sentence is a function of raising only question evidence probation state’s authori testimony appellant’s own that he was ties, sentencing and not the court. The distraught and that he had vivid recol sentence improper. was not past lections of activities while combat of the trial court is af- An Nam. accused must a soldier Viet firmed. insanity introduce some evidence be insanity he is entitled to an instruc fore did

tion. The trial court not view presented

evidence raise sufficient to carefully issue. examined We have agree record, complete and are in

ment with the court’s decision. trial argument present The next Douglas al., GOMES et by appellant his motion for ed is that Plaintiffs, granted acquittal been be should government prove cause failed se Anthony al., P. et TRAVISONO injury. deciding bodily rious wheth In Defendants. grant acquittal, er a motion 73-1065, Nos. 73-1066. trial must consider evidence light prosecu most favorable Appeals, United States Court of Mallory, tion. United 460 F.2d States First Circuit. cert, (10th 1972), denied, Cir. Argued Sept. 7, 1973. 34 L.Ed.2d 120. Dec. Decided The evidence that the victim established gunshot Amended Jan. sustained There were wound. of entry, wounds located on the lower chest, side of his where he had aught

been hit at least two double pellets. pellets

buckshot One tearing liver, struck his a one-inch causing organ,

two-inch hole in Israel, Atty. Gen.,

Richard J. Allen, Jr., Atty. whom W. Slater Asst. Gen., brief, Anthony was on P. Travisono, and others. Stern, Mass., Boston,

Max D. Shapiro, Boston, Mass., whom Stern & Cary Coen, Providence, I., J. R. Jack Greenberg, City, Stanley New York and Bass, Chicago, 111., brief, A. on were Douglas Gomes, and others. COFFIN, Before Judge, KIL Chief * CAMPBELL, KENNY Circuit Judges. Judge.

COFFIN, Chief general appeals ques- These raise the extent, all, tion: to what if at does the require procedural Constitution rights prisoners prior be extended to their transfer from a in one state to that in another district state? court, thoughtful lengthy opin- in a ion, (D.R.I.1973), granted injunctive declaratory broad part relief. We affirm in and reverse part. brought action, This of all behalf male Rhode Island inmates under 42 U. S.C. 1983 and 28 chal U.S.C. § § lenges constitutionality of transfers from Rhode Island’s Adult Correctional (A.C.I.) Institution to various out of prior prisons state and federal notice, reason, hearing. statement among plaintiffs The named were eleven inmates of who A.C.I. were transferred throughout prisons country fall 1971. Tensions at the correction following September al institution prison uprising Attica had been com pounded by a strike of correctional work * Circuit, by designation. sitting Of the seq.; Ninth (1956, 11-1 et 13-12-1 § R.I.G.L. Reenactment) and 18 § U.S.C. 1. The transfers to both state and federal prisons were authorized under R.I.G.L. 13-

officers, predominance of unseasoned We note at the outset that what blueprints power employees, discovery is not at issue in of bomb this case is the prisoners.2 and racial animosities. An Afro-Ameri- Nor does Society any depend can had become active and had resolution of this case grievances “right” put which forward a list to remain being spread prison.3 discussed. Rumor What is at issue is whether disruption contemplated rights procedural ex serious what extent planned by Society. prisoner’s ist when a out of contemplated. Analysis state is circumstances, result of these begins among person- anxiety which created prisoner’s with an assessment of the nel, Society’s promi- most several deprivation on transfer. Invocation of along with four white nent members depends upon whether treat prisoners, planning suspected of to take ment inherent in the transfer advantage attempt any distraction to of “grievous Morrissey constitutes loss”. summarily escape, an were taken out of Brewer, 471, 483, v. 408 92 S.Ct. U.S. prison population and transferred. (1972); v. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 Fuentes charges or of reasons were No statement 67, 1983, Shevin, L. 407 32 U.S. presented prisoners. Neither Regents (1972); Ed.2d v. 556 Board of prisoners’ attorneys prisoners nor the 564, Roth, 570-571, S.Ct. 408 U.S. 92 given were notice of themselves transfer Goldberg 2701, (1972); 33 L.Ed.2d 548 opportunity to heard. or afforded an 254, 1011, 25 Kelly, 90 v. 397 U.S. S.Ct. They prisons in were transferred to sev- (1969); L.Ed.2d Anti-Fascist 287 Joint states, including Georgia, Kansas eral McGrath, Refugee U.S. v. 341 Committee and All those removed were Illinois. 624, segregated receiving prisons 168, 817 L.Ed. 123, in the for a S.Ct. 71 period J., concurring). (Frankfurter, of from two to six weeks. (1951) precedent cited to us is direct- prisoner Much or constitutional lias no vested power See, prison. See, particular ed to the transfer issue. e. right to remain (3d and g., Gray Creamer, Hillen v. Director of Social Service F.2d v. 465 179 (9th 1972), (no Housing, (“a prisoner 455 F.2d Cir. 1972) 510 has no consti- state Cir. challenge any particular right to under which the remain in tutional to prisoner transferred) Hanvey Pinto, ; prison.”) ; was v. rel. v. ex Thomas United States (3d 1971) ; Rodriguez- (E.D.Pa. Bookbinder, F.Supp. 441 F.2d 1154 Cir. 1125 330 (1st States, F.Supp. 529 1971) Bundy Cannon, Sandoval v. United 409 F.2d ; 165 v. 328 1969) (held Attorney (“a (D.Md.1971) prisoner Cir. General vested has no right assigned had to determine the federal remain in a medi- or to initially place prisoner) ; prisoners Lawr- security prison”, which to but where um (10th Willingham, receiving prison they ence v. 373 F.2d 731 Cir. segregated must 1967) (reached only safeguards) procedural ; the issue of the Attor- Verde be afforded ney power designate place (D.C.Pa.1971) to Case, F.Supp. General’s 701 prisoner challenge of confinement for a under 18 U.S. (due process failed to to transfer 4082(a) contrary sentencing claim) Ulmer, §C. 159 Me. Duncan v. procedural recommendation; (1963) (“it court’s no due 266, must be A.2d 617 process challenge raised) ; prisoner speaking Duncan v. pointed was out cert, Madigan, (9th Cir.), right”). 278 F.2d 695 de- privilege The force of the not a nied, 919, 1096, premise U.S. S.Ct. of these Supreme drawn from the inference (1960) (upheld constitutionality substantially by cases is eroded permitting rejection concept 18 U.S.C. transfers that con- of “the Court’s prisons). gov- federal ex rel. upon United States turn stitutional whether F.Supp. 1079, Yeager, D.C., ‘right’ Stuart ernment is characterized as benefit cert, aff’d, (3d Cir.), denied, Richardson, 419 F.2d 126 ‘privilege’.” or as a Graham v. 1400, S.Ct. (1969) (no procedural chal- reject We therefore lenge) . these decisions on' the authori- basis for ty Graham, supra, disposed challenges and for reasons discussed 3. Some cases have ground simplistic text, reject transfers on the that a their as well. conclusion (9) problems deprivation there serious In this case assessments prisoners orientation to a new environment. transferred giving predicate are a Wholly apart specifics of from the And, broad declarato- them since relief. recognized case, we think it well sought ry injunctive relief characteristically entails granted, inquire wheth- it is relevant privations. inconveniences and Some relating er, apart unique facts alone, factor in arise distance general plaintiffs, to these creasing difficulty of communication deprivation attended sufficient Capitan Cupp, and visitation. See safeguards. warrant (D.Or.1972). Other examined short district disadvantages breaking from the stem range long consequences to indi- programs, off of established both educa by A.C.I. to discover viduals transferred rehabilitative, tional and and orienta whether those transfers resulted setting, programs, tion to a new rules findings, grievous The court made loss. companions.4 privations Still evidence, (1) supported by that: exist reason of the administrative re placed in “ad- inmates were transferred quirements prison. segregation in the receiv- ministrative” ing subject New often be inmates must period of to six for a institution two pending “administrative” isolation ex weeks, discipline; in cells used for often amination, integration classification, and (2) transferred records prison community.5 into a new Al rarely them, accompanied nor was mates though segregation for reason re- made clear to for transfer reason may distinguished be from the reason (3) result, ceiving institutions; a as punitive segregation, impact for receiving classification board upon Finally, if is less. inmate no prison placed in as- the inmates work the fact of noted on an inmate’s signments programs explanation record without further con treatment; (4) gener- prior sistent with “troublemaker”, may continuing criminal outside sional with hearings, for for board ferees may for the be contacts. A transfer preparation in conferences counsel himself, prisoner best interests legal proceedings, appear- for and for safety for rehabilitation for or his Finally proceedings. the in court ance off better if that he will be it is believed court ordered that eleven inmates the may dic- And a transfer be elsewhere. be re- on November 1971 transferred shortcomings of tated the needs or custody turned to and that institution, over- to alleviate the crowding. times be returned transferred at other variety of in kinds hearings proprie- of for on the issue for lati- and the need transfer decisions ty of their transfer. dis- discretion administrative tude process punitive required safe- due (W.D.Ky. reason Holme, F.Supp. 369 288 7. Ault v. F.Supp. McCorkle, guards) ; 334 F.Supp. v. 1973) ; Vitek, Urbano Aug. 23, v. 361 Hoitt (D.N.J.1971) (prisoners ad- confined to Gillman, 161 (D.N.H.1973) ; v. White segregation Capitan same entitled to 1973) ; ministrative F.Supp. (S.D.Iowa v. process prisoners to confined (D.Or.1972) minimal due as F.Supp. Cupp, see infractions). segregation disciplinary (D.Md. F.Supp. for Bundy Cannon, Kranz, proc The Law of also citations 1971) (court See due that ruled Rights n. 2 and Prisoners’ Corrections transfer was to be afforded ess must when - (1973). prison); segregated confinement (July Biagrelli Siegliff, F.2d 508 cf. interstate here to confine ourselves We put 7, 1973) (a prisoner administrative into appeal transfers, partly because segregation notice of is entitled to written partly only because cerns such transfers opportunity to removal and the basis of his disadvantageous impact transfer to hearing) charges ; Bowers v. rebut systems is more different state correctional (D.Vt.1972) (in Smith, respects likely greater significant segregated prison state. area for non- than transfers within a transfer to paint contemplated by We feel constrained to transfer” itself is rules, brush. much a smaller While those we would think it anoma- appropriate lous, required process what the court is both from a due and an protection equal point view, for some transfer situations some if approach appropriate all, prison re our accomplish for authorities could quires stringently procedure-free rather punishment us be selec a they tive. at the outset that we accomplish observe which We could not within emergencies, exception for endorse their own walls. We therefore affirm provided for the district court. We the district its insofar as order recognize impending present imported rules, that or dis only the Morris but as turbances which overtax the con prisoners’ transfers which are based on capacity past trol creates a domi prison.10 misconduct within the being nant interest authorities variety for of other delay able act if feel without transfers, premise we work from the inmate, endanger delay would application once community. others, Bod or requirements justified by or is the loss Connecticut, die disadvantage stemming from the institu 780, 28 This action, tion’s must mini afford though dif so the assessment of is even mally processes which little subsequently prove ficulties supra, Palmigiano, no burden. text unjustified. and the transfers unfounded at notes 19-20. These must however, process requires, once Due supplemented opportunity with the place, inmate be takes correct errors of fact on which adminis granted opportunity the at earliest trative decisions are based and assure identify procedures which we minimal grievous imposed loss will not be due. infra without careful examination to deter grounds imposi mine that spectrum such an At the other end situation, tion emergency exist.11 We consider due where present present hin to include: circumstances authorities act (1) contemplat notice that a transfer drance, is made the transfer which ed; (2) notice punish prisoner past for his conduct.9 reasons proposed (3) where, transfer; personal situation, hear but In such a ing decisionmaker; (4) before a transfer, classification loss hearing, opportunity, privileges imposed reasonable within would be to controvert assertions concern al factual prison, has we think balance ing the advanced ready set inmate that been A.C.I. rules the been struck support Travisono, in of the decision to transfer. F. forth in Morris hearing not Supp. 857, (D.R.I.1970), The function would and 871-874 . justify de- adopted be to force warden law Island. While Rhode lacking provide prison, example, a sufficient basis for misconduct 9. For where apprehension security facilities, of future misconduct. We nec- seeks maximum sufficient essarily rely good presently inmate, faith of the au- a member an to transfer population general prison thorities. with normal privileges, institution’s maximum to another imposing premise 1 1. The action effort security unit. factual deter losses on accurate substantial prison- possibility recognize is a central theme minations that IVe See, Gagnon recently engaged cases. in misconduct er has who 778, 785, Scarpelli, may sought be transferred because be (1973) Morrissey apprehension v. Brew 36 L.Ed.2d 656 the authorities’ 471, 479-480, er, endangering may repeated, secu- S.Ct. U.S. duct (1972) ; Goldberg Kelly, rity prison. In the absence of 254, 267, basis, and rules the Morris think that we boot-strap- preclude their intent would past ping occur result which would by any evidence, ment, quantum cisión or to transcript, short verbatim of a provide preserve points the basis for review a remote that will and conten- independent official, board, or tions made. court. prisoner’s But it would inter- serve parts As to those being subjected, est without an going beyond court’s order the notice opportunity present his views and hearing procedure again itself, we corrections, arbitrary factual to an deci- noting must be selective. Because stemming sion from the of a malice papers reason for for guard prisoner, or other or an untrue warded with the transferred inmate is rumor. may require so little substantially require- We are clear these four unnecessary avoid restrictions ments are quires. that due the least re- institution, transferee we do not disturb presently We are also requirement. We also believe that that, in view the kinds of transfers we the reason for not must be addressing, impose are prison cannot on the we ined the inmate’s records Rhode Is requirements authorities the of a land, so that unwarranted inferences investigation, pre-hearing unfairly will opportunities diminish help advocate, lay inmate to the parole. Nor do we take issue with evidence, decisions based on substantial requirements periodic review of or administrative review. the status of transferred inmates on may terms which the court deem feasi areWe not so clear about two other standpoint ble from the of A.C.I. or of degree matters. The first is the of im- regulations governing the return of partiality of the decisionmaker. While transferred inmates to Rhode Island impartiality ideal, absolute is the seewe hearings, board reasonable consul difficulty requiring type this in the counsel, appearance tation with dealing of transfer case we are with. proceedings.12 not, We do how For, having separated out the kind of ever, requirement prior affirm the charges case where of misconduct are to transfer authorities investi being pressed against inmate, gate pro rehabilitative treatment inappropriate where it is most that the grams receiving institutions or sub prosecutor per- and decider be the same mit a statement to institutions son, we are left with matters where the inadequacies of A.C.I.’s and recommen superintendent necessarily or warden is relating dations vested Moreover, discretion. wide transferee.13 true of As is much important it well be for the inmate desirable; order, court’s well directly to be able to address the warden say compelled. cannot designate. admittedly or his these With limiting strictures, Finally, we leave to the dis- we affirm the court’s order fashioning returning trict court the of a transfer Island the Rhode eleven hearing aspire tribunal can which to mates transferred on November objectivity hearing recognizing reasonable while we have de- kind of responsibility and wide discretion of scribed. As to other inmates who have superintendent. transferred, the warden In like while been right have a manner hearing, we leave to the court to work should be advised wishing out an record-keeping require- informal to avail of their Hooey, McGinnis, (2d 12. Smith F.2d 178 See Sostre Klopfer (1969) ; . 1971). Nor do we feel such in- en Cir. banc Carolina, receiving vestigation prisons required North 213 at 87 S. is Compact England Ct. Corrections or the New addition, agree In we U.S.C. requirement 13. The court based a below Compact neither the nor that prison evaluation facilities preclude transfers for nonreha- process. federal law due have indicated we do we purposes. think bilitative that due extends this far. possible given op- demands to the Warden of it should be themselves Society, the other involv- Afro-American portunity. hostages. ing contemplated a seizure of experience indicate Time surrounding of this In the ruption, confusion dis- identified that inmates would then at- several prove minimally necessary will as escape. tempt This information was prefer, how- illusory inadequate. We or prison from obtained informants gingerly ever, this uncharted move Although personnel. there were several area. plot them versions of the and some of part and The is affirmed inconsistent, question in there little part. remanded The case is reversed in the mind of Warden that there was proceedings consistent for further something the rumors. Four of behind opinion. white, the transferred inmates were rest were black. The black inmates CAMPBELL, Circuit H. LEVIN in the active Afro-American Socie- (concurring). Judge ty. The white inmates who were trans- clear, repeating what At the risk of suspected planning ferred were to es- opinion understanding my cape. it is out, As it turned there awas us, before limited the situation clear mistake as to two of the white in- prisons. namely out-of-state transfers to judge mates. The trial found from one do not that a transfer I believe transfers were motivated the stories juris- within forthcoming prison to another institution riot, of a carry with would prison diction of commitment officials were of the honest belief described plot, that there was a and that their ac- foreign opinion. to a transferring court’s jurisdiction Transfer traditionally tion in was not re- been has arbitrary capricious. judge or The ex- garded altogether pressed different: however, the opinion, jurisdiction within cast outside Warden’s fear of an imminent often to be uprising which one was sentenced is was not based reliable evi- privileges separated rights, dence. be- available—to standards otherwise agree majori- I am unable to with the come, degree, “man to some ty . some view “. . country”. event, In not other- such but cases.”, is mandated in all transfer “grievous wise, there be said with the conclusion that “. . . no- protec- requiring harm” constitutional charges or reasons for the action tice tion. op- and of the intent to transfer with an challenge

portunity for the inmate to re- KILKENNY, Judge (dissent- facts . . .” is a constitutional Circuit quirement in transfer is ing). all cases where circumstances, contemplated. In the atmosphere The Rhode Island in the charges, presented, notice of the here Adult Correction Institution fall suspected inmates, served on the following bloody uprising triggered the riot which well have September Attica, New feared. authorities York, was one of acute tension and majority in- has frontation between militant black It to me that the seems recognize consequences mates and members of the staff. that the failed Shortly transfers, blueprints crime involve before of conviction making enjoyable merely liberty in a materials for a bomb were loss additionally prison. Then, society, found in the subse- the Warden free but inevitably impairments quent received which are what he considered reliable closely membership plot formation that a was afoot. associated with good plot action; supervised prison community. plans involved one A two of plan calling presentation im- action of faith determination that swift necessary prevent riot to forestall a should sub- their efforts to what well outweigh stantially bloody prison mutiny. deter- an immediate be a The trial culpability. judge hindsight For mination of individual concedes that his obser- matter, inherent characteristics vations on the seriousness of the threat society prison prison consequence. such are of no prompt officers must make decisions The transferred do not chal gov- them, problems and this confront lenge validity England of the New maintaining disci- ernmental interest Compact, Interstate Corrections under outweighs plined order the individu- far provisions of which were trans justice. perfect al interest On this Despite ferred. what said the ma record, alleged tak- autocratic action jority, hearings, transfers without under en an in- officials was concerned compacts per se unconstitu such are not manage- evitable incident effective Dept. tional. Hillen Director of v. suspected ment of the inmates. Housing, Social Service & 455 F.2d 510 cert, best, process is flexible and (CA9 1972), 989, At denied 409 U.S. protec- only 331, calls for 256; 93 S.Ct. v. L.Ed.2d Duncan tions that demands. Con- Madigan, (CA9 1960), situation 278 F.2d 695 cert, proc- procedures due 1096, sideration of what 919, denied 366 U.S. 81 S.Ct. any given require set of ess under (1961); Duncan v. Ul begin de- circumstances must with the mer, 266, Me. 191 A.2d 617 precise termination nature of I would reverse the governmental involved, as well function lower court and dismiss action. private as the interest governmental been affected ac- conceding, Consequently,

tion. even not,

which I do the action us,

authorities, ris- on the record before dimensions, es to still constitutional weigh predictable tragic

must conse- quences riot an imminent against highly personal restricted America, UNITED STATES nothing inmates. I find Appellee, guidelines enunciated in Morris- v. sey 471, Brewer, v. 92 S.Ct. U.S. THOMPSON, Appellant. Alfred John 2593, (1972); Board of No. 73-1412. Regents Roth, 564, 92 S.Ct. U.S. 2701, (1972); Appeals, United States Court L.Ed.2d Graham Eighth Circuit. 365, 1848, Richardson, 403 U.S. 91 S.Ct. (1971); Goldberg 29 L.Ed.2d v. Kel- 11, Submitted Dec. ly, 25 L.Ed. Decided Jan. (1970); 2d 287 Un- Cafeteria Workers McElroy, ion v. (1961), Supreme Court cases which I have ana- lyzed, suggest type that,

record, suspected enti- inmates were hearing

tled to a before transfer.

Although imposed rules Morris (D.R.I. Travisono,

1970), appear outline what would day every

reasonable disci-

plinary problems, they should be em- ployed handcuff officials notes inmate they ally, they transferees, because were be faced with recurrent unfavorable dis precluded from were rehabilitative positions as his status within the programs, psychological therapy ses- eventually suffer an (5) sions, programs; and educational decision,6resulting parole in unfavorable pay no their received less or for longer a of the term adverse alteration work; (6) prisoners had all transferred living inmate’s conditions. friends; family and fewer from visits may purpose (7) attorney during pe- Whatever be none saw an inevitability (8) transfer; transfers or of some of riod of transfer affected necessarily parole consequences, their look we trou- chances because denoted Having to their on inmate. effect blemaker on the record and be- status may examined be both the initial or short term cause the inmate transferred prisoner present hearings consequences transferred board while continuing potential impact usually present; for resident inmates prisoners F.Supp. (D.N.H. kept segregated days Vitek, for were 30 Hoitt v. 361 1238 1973) receiving prison). ; Sarver, F.Supp. 309 362 Holt v. cf. (E.D.Ark.1970) generally Turner, Es see prisoner’s “disciplinary may 6. A record fol- Prisons, tablishing Rule of Law throughout system; if low him (1971). Stan.L.Rev. 501-503 cause, punishment is liis was he (W.D. Holmes, F.Supp. punished his record anew each time is used See Ault 1973) (prisoners receiving against Burgett Texas, Ky. Aug. 23, him. prisons days) ; segregated five or ... for six (1967). Similarly, disciplinary Vitek, F.Supp. (D.N.H. his record parole Hoitt v. may 1973) routinely placed quar- eligibility (transferees affect his ” Hardy, ; Bundy Cannon, U.S.App. segregation) . antined Hudson v. (55 (D.Md.1971) transferred D.C. F.2d impose any attempting to us liberty, that some suade from upon conclude proce- of due extensive blanket in all transfer process mandated is Palmigiano to cover all Here, v. Bax- dures transfers. inas cases.7 ter, Cir.1973), e*- (1st F.2d 1280 This, however, what the district was requires more process due tent of the predicate prescribed as a did. It balancing examination, and a delicate emergency transfer, except any an against of the interests state’s transfer, situation, notice of reasons for prisoner. by an for transfer a the basis review of balancing more of interests is hearing investigative officer, a before complex than it transfer cases in these impartial inmate at which the an board specific discipline act for a is is where contemplated. right to call and examine would have the Discipline, punish- lay help of advo- witnesses with ranging degrees ment, sever- while cate, decision be based piece. ity, generically of a Trans- all is evidence, record to with a substantial prisoner one fer of a kept be and administrative review may made for another8 be In addi- decision to be available. may “puni- It number of reasons. hearing-related procedures, tion to these tive”, ad- the sense mandated, prior investigation an attempting simply ministration punish pro- transfer, of the rehabilitative It for “secu- misdeed. grams receiving institution predicated if, here, rity” on the it is given in- a statement general apprehension of and uncontrolla- respect identifying in what stitution predictions of fu- ble disturbance or inadequate Rhode Island’s facilities inmate. It ture an misconduct putative needs of other interests be made for the best transfer, After the court re- transferee. disruptive, prisoner if the quired periodic trans- review of the others, a bad or otherwise threat to regu- adoption feree’s and the status profes- of a case fluence as would be the ensuring the return trans- lations

Case Details

Case Name: Douglas Gomes v. Anthony P. Travisono

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Jan 7, 1974

Citation: 490 F.2d 1209

Docket Number: 73-1065, 73-1066

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.