Richard X. Brown v. C. C. Peyton, Etc.

security quate posted, for otherwise “continuing.” The

violation would be here, however, not “con- violation tinuing” in the that word is used sense Ruling, for the continuation of Kappels’ imperil withdrawals did not integrity Each bene- trusts. funded; ficiary’s pension separately anyone Kappels no funds very im- fact that were withdrawn. proper had from the withdrawals trusts ground disqualifi- occurred was the 55-297, (see g.,

cation Rev.Rul. 1955- e. 398). But whether 1 Cum.Bull. require restoration Service would change example, than, rather funds composition in the ees, of trust- of the board regranting the as a condition for ex- emption today. not clear even Com- 69-233, pare 1969-1 Cum.Bull. Rev.Rul. 156; 70-315, 1970 Int.Rev. Rev.Rul. Furthermore, the rec- Bull.No.25 at 8. any on this

ord is barren question. evidence Thus, Judge we to have believe Weber holding taxpay- been correct that the ers did not demonstrate the existence repaid- 1960—when funds were —of

valid claim the other beneficiaries required trustees would Kappels to return the funds to trusts. so, being compliance This is ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍no requirements herе with of the claim doctrine. Accordingly, judgment of the Dis- trict Court will be affirmed. BROWN, Appellant,

Richard X. PEYTON, etc., al., Appellees. C. C. et

No. 13797. Appeals, United States Court of Fourth Circuit. Argued Oct. 1970. Decided Feb. 1971. Grey (court-appointed) for

Alison M. appellant. Cronk, Atty. Tabor Asst. Gen. C. Atty. (Andrew Miller, P. Gen. of

Va. Va., brief) appellees. Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Before Chief WINTER, and BRYAN Judges. Circuit

WINTER, Judge: Circuit Virginia

Plaintiff, an inmate of professes adherence who Muslim, faith, Islamic, filed or Black against prison officials alleging permis- had been denied that he newspaper Mu- sion subscribe Speaks, purchase ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍the book by in America to the Blackman fully Muhammad, Elijah but- in Sewell to order Islamic decision established Cooper Pate, diction- U.S. and an tons and emblems Arabic Coop- ary grammar, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 and to meetings together members er it was held that an inmate of a state with other injunc- prison who He sued for was denied of the Islamic sect. purchase permission certain relief under tive U.S.C.A. § damages, privileges apparently Fed- and other for under the denied Act, enjoyed by рrisoners solely 1346 other eral Tort Claims 28 U.S.C.A. be- § religious seq. of his a et cause beliefs summary of action to dis- cause immune com- The district court dismissed the missal. requiring hearing, plaint after without district an to be filed. The answer judge denied relief as to Muhammad clearly These cases establish that to the Blackman on рrisoner shed his a does not first ground “this censor- matter of prison portals. amendment at the ship” “solely within dis- the sound Sewell, narrowly, may if While read be officials,” cretion of the State Farm protection equal as an treated relying heavily on this decision Court’s Cooper certainly proceeds on the brоader Cunningham, F.2d v. 393 Since basis the first amendment. 1968). (4 775 recog Cir. Plaintiff’s claim Cooper, increasingly it has been religious and Arabic materials was prisoners nized that retain substantial prejudice dismissed without on the basis rights despite convic amendment of evidence submitted with defendants’ See, g., tion and e. Bar incarceration. аnswer which indicated that denial 296, Rodgers, U.S.App.D.C. nett v. 133 product materials was the Parker, (1969); Long 410 995 v. F.2d misunderstanding, plaintiff and that 1968); (3 390 816 Jackson F.2d Cir. v. would be to obtain them and Godwin, 1968). 400 (5 F.2d 529 Cir. meetings future. right Persons not incarcerated Damages previous for held denials were practice any and to reli believe

unavailable failed bеcause had gious faith, traditional or unorthodox. allege diversity citizenship. Island, 67, v. Rhode 345 73 Fowler U.S. (1953); appealed. L.Ed. 828 Can Plaintiff has reverse Connecticut, v. proceedings. twell 60 S. and remand for further 900, 84 Ct. L.Ed. 1213 What we here extent must decide is the to which right this survives incarceration. has been “[I]t never held that A number of enter into fаctors our entering entirely one is bereft The decision. rationale the first of all of his civil and forfeits ev is, part, that, par- at least in ery protection of the law.” Sewell aside, doctrine ticular devotion to one’s Pegelow, 291 F.2d Cir. religious beliefs is considered to make 1961). Vallee, See also Piercе v. La intelligent, ethical, one a more useful F.2d 233 This statement society. per- member case of pris made a case in which state crime, community’s sons convicted of granted oners were to seek to development need for the of virtues of they subjected establish' were greater is this far than for those sort discriminatory prison, treatment in prin- not convicted of One of the crime. cluding prohibition practice of the cipal purposes of incarceration reha- religion wearing their and the of reli is a moral bilitation rehabilitation gious symbols, they because Mus were process. intellectual Criminаls and lims. We decided the evidence may by allegations sustained communities be benefited were en religion. titled to redress. correctness the free exercise As the Rodgers, communication ple, prevents unlimited Barnett v. court observed permissible world outside 1002: crime; punish ad- deter in order inmate, degrаdes the Treatment may imposed as ditional restrictions privacy, and frustrates invades his system punishing part misbe- through pursuits ability to choose Finally, prison. the state havior within himself manifest reducing has an very foun- gain self-respect erodes may, expense of It administration. prepare he can dations example, place restrictions reasonable Religion in socially life. useful publications received on the number of rehabilitative subserves limit the bur- inmate in each order by providing an area within function examining incoming materials. den of dig- the inmate reclaim of these sorts But the fact that interests individuality, nity and reassert frequently ne- arise not excuse the does eliminated.) (footnotes showing they in cessity of a that exist rights first amendment While particular cases. rights, nonetheless, they “preferred” are therefore, plain hold, that We The re are not unlimited. state religion may practice tiff’s desire if it be shown strict acts convincing ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍only upon a they pose be restricted that “some substantial threat showing paramount that interests public safety, peace order,” state that or “ require. so ‘compelling there is a interest in state ” ** * regulation.’ v. the Sherbert II Verner, 403, 1790, 398, 374 U.S. 83 S.Ct. (1963). 10 L.Ed.2d 965 proving The of ex the of istence such interests on the rests course, Of awful incarcer “[1] merely by met The burden is not state. brings necessary ation the about with filing of contro the an answer which many privileges or of drawal limitation allegations verts the of the * * rights Price John- v. previous solely relies our deci which on ston, 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. Cunningham, Abernathy in su sion v. L.Ed. This is pra. prisoners true of in- because the case рrocess, carcerated under lawful Abernathy In the the dis- justify repression judge dispositive are state interests to of trict treated as rights or restriction of first amendment to reli- to have access beyond might justify gious the publications, interests which hold- we affirmed the restrictions citi- ing unincarcerated the that considеra- of district court discipline justified prison Prison officials to confine zens. have offi- tions of dangerous unpleasant denying men circum- cials an inmate same the protect They public publications stances. must the in this Mu- involved case: large, prison employees, Message and also oth- to the prisоners, totally er emphasized who are de- almost Blackman. We that “offi- pendent prison on the for their well- evaluation cials’ of the literature being. legiti- among probable Prison authorities have a on its effect relations lightly regard- mate prisoners rehabilitation the not to be prisoners, may legitimately 779) not, restrict p. ed.” We did however, prison freedoms in judg- order to this inter- further that officials’ est, coherent, consistently-ap- where a The ment final and unreviewable. program plied of rehabilitation exists. court in Aber- district decision affirmed Furthermore, many nathy restrictions on based on “an evi- exhaustive rights undoubtеdly justi- dentiary hearing” 777) (p. are and on part regimen punitive finding censorship as fiable had been prison: itself, justified confinement for exam- on a concern” based “valid prison part of- on the We are told that with 779) (p. the find- the Blackman is identical We verified edition ficials. ings Abernathy. considered As to “close examination of book (p. 779) Speaks, newspaper.” well there are and issues of as to recognized Abernathy probative questions other in thus as to which factual recognized judgment, quiry officials’ must made. We value of recognized necessity of review Muslim are also uniformly by prison prison administrators authori of the decisions of banned throughout insure that constitutional ties the United States. protected. penal prisoners also See are aware distribution within are Patuxent, McDonough the deci Director of institutions has increased since Abernathy. experience sion in 429 F.2d 1189 Cir. prisons Muslim recognizing necessity proba shоuld literature have substantial prison admin of the decisions of review question tive value istrators insure the constitution forbidding That ex interests access. protected, prisoners al are Ab together perience should be considered ernathy judg was correct. While opinions officials ments of officials are entitled to determining the effect of access to these weight considerable because Moreover, publications. district based first-hand observance of the court should consider use prison of events life and a certain plaintiff put publications proposes to expertise functiоning penal of a whether, if he for exam obtains them — institution, are officials not ple, proselytize intends them he to use to judges. They charged by are not law impose —and can whether the and constitutional mandate with the re use, some restrictions on access and sponsibility interpreting apply for and prohibition, short of absolute which ing provisions, constitutional and satisfactorily. purposes would serve its always are persons not in disinterested 479, 488, Tucker, Shelton v. prison problems. the resolution of We (1960); Bar L.Ed.2d denigrate do not their views we can but Rodgers, supra. nett v. absolutely not be bound them. evidentiary hearing An is also plenary required respect plaintiff’s conclude a that to claim hearing should to prevented ordering be conducted to deter have from been mine whether plaintiff the denial to of Muslim and emblems buttons Speaks language and to the and Arabic materials. In his justified by superior plaintiff Blackman a that Although Abеrnathy prevented interest. purchasing state from these items. answered, denying concerned with peti the same Defendants that plaintiff acquire right wishes to purchase in the instant tioner was denied the to disposi dowe not think is that it them. Attached to the answer were let aspect tive of this of his Mu ters claim. from one defendant who is director periodical. Virginia Corrections, is a Not of ev the Division of ery judicial scrutiny Department Institutions, issue warrants to of Welfare paramount determine if superintendent is a state and the assistant su denying in perintendent to access but the of institution in the which publication may lodged. charаcter plaintiff alter The letters state period over period any of time. The that no order there is record elapsed any has placed by plaintiff since the dates of the mate issues alleges in purchase, considered is sufficient rials he he desires to justify a may reexamination no handled оf their nature one that who request (the identity pos their effect on administra such a of such being disclosed) tion. persons has sible not order, any opinion knowledge majority intimates, upon any such incar- plead- effecting plaintiff further response, filed a ceration as a loss of “all of [a reiterating rights]”, oath, ing, that he had convict’s civil forfeiture under purchase “every protection opportunity shedding of law” aor been denied the original the first amendment. matter In this cause [sic] “Islamic working Complaint by Employees Certainly, no one Bill of avows these tenets. farms,” pris- penitentiary limits State under defendants оn constitutionally naming whom he referred. oners’ can be individuals to necessity only Manifestly, pleadings raise a factual terms of measured protection dispute resolved. with the must be commensurate public, the maintenance of institutional attached to defendants’ an- The letters order, safety the administrаtors meetings prayer also swer assert advantages inmates, all and the “Southside” just protestants. not meetings prayer allowed will be ap- regi- exceptional On the future on the “Northside.” instances the Save argu- plaintiff peal press does not left officials with- men should be Conceding right participate judicial interference. ment that his out meetings abridged. argument only De- has been prove may particular ne- fendants’ answer render the custodian to injunctive respect cessity regulation suit, for the the ob- claim to relief with moot, prayer meetings ligation matter has fulfilled As been here. Cunning- plena- opinion notes, Abernathy be considered further 1968) hearing ry ham, con- F.2d 775 be conducted persists very publications. claiming has Conse- that some these demned abridged. said quently, how it can be been do see duty respondent still has the

Ill prison. justify If ban from the a correction of their ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍sin- there has been court, Should the district on re by Abernathy, I as ister character found mand, conclude that appellant required to should be think the improperly have been prove not even at- He has aver and it. him, plain denied he should consider if tempted so, head and hence on that to do tiff can his show entitlement to dam his case fails. ages. grоunded Plaintiff’s suit was Otherwise, jailor have to would Rights the Civil Act of 42 U.S.C. periodical keep issues of current on support A. 1983. The Act will the re § specific Speaks. covery Unless a money damages past vio deprivation showing in- is made of a lations of constitutional if dam constantly reading nocuous ages, past рrospective, proved, or matter — maga- simply in one edition Stanly County Wall v. Board of Educa not be hours should custodial tion, zine —his 1967), 378 F.2d 275 irre Cir. reading. occupation of to an spective diversity citizenship shifted Message has not been to the Blackman procedural requirements. it changed not told least we are —at Reversed and remanded. why pleaded appellant has not —and the acceptable not so when it was is now it Judge BRYAN, ALBERT V. Circuit ago. years two (dissenting): agree the Court can I Nor disagree should major- authorities with so much administrative pro- ity opinion judge’s use to which as overturns the trial “the consider rеspect put ob- poses dismissal of the is, suggestion appellant’s I take to receive Muham- them”. tains mad, passing restricted be to the Black- that he could prison- ruling premised, to other man. His is not their contents them or utterly To me this consideration is ers. impracticable. guard Unless to be

placed prisoner reading beside

time, ward, publica- or reads easily tion would broadcast defeat regulation. superintendent If is unfair care, remedy those committed to his appeal is an to those above him. The Virginia prison system gen- under the supervision eral Director Department of Welfare & Institutions. Complaints concerning Va.Code 53-3. § internal and administration properly should be reviewed the ad- hierarchy. ministrative At least ‍​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‍ought resort to be demanded of the com- plaint impose before the courts visita- jails, penitentiaries tions keepers. Cf. Paden v. United States,

The PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VIRGINIA, Petitioner, OF WEST The FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Company,

and Mountain Gas corporation, Respondents. NATIONAL OF ASSOCIATION REGU- LATORY UTILITY COMMIS- SIONERS, Petitioner, COMMISSION,

FEDERAL POWER Respondent. Nos. 14609. Appeals, United States Court of Fourth Circuit. Argued Dec. 1970. Decided Feb. 1971.

Case Details

Case Name: Richard X. Brown v. C. C. Peyton, Etc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 3, 1971

Citation: 437 F.2d 1228

Docket Number: 13797_1

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.