Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HAUGHEY v. RHAY

June 4, 1969

John T. P. HAUGHEY, Plaintiff,
v.
B. J. RHAY, Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary; Dale Fuller, Counselor at Washington State Penitentiary; and Carl Maxey, Attorney at Law, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: EAST

 EAST, District Judge.

 This cause and the various motions of the parties now pending have been assigned to the undersigned U.S. Senior District Judge by Chief Judge Charles L. Powell for determination.

 It appears that Haughey was convicted by the Court without a jury of the crimes of Second Degree Murder and Second Degree Assault in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Spokane County, and was sentenced thereunder on June 7, 1965, to twenty years and ten years imprisonment for the respective crimes, to run concurrently. Since the conviction Haughey has been in the physical custody of first, the superintendent of Washington State detention facility at Shelton, Washington, later and presently of the defendant Rhay (Rhay), as superintendent of the Washington State Prison.

 This court will treat and deal with Haughey's petition and its attachments as a complaint in a Civil Rights Action pursuant to the provisions of Section 1983, Title 42, U.S.C.A.

 
"Section 1983. Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.
 
"Every person who, under color of any * * * regulation, custom, or usage, of any State * * * subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen * * * or other person within the jurisdiction (of the United States) to the deprivation of any rights privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in * * * proper proceeding for redress."

 I will deal with the various motions of the parties in the chronological order of filing, except for the two motions of Haughey filed under date of May 20, 1969.

 HAUGHEY'S MOTION TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE U.S. MARSHALL (2-18-69)

 There is no office for such a motion under either the Acts of Congress nor the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and further the substance of the motion is now moot.

 HAUGHEY'S MOTION FOR THE SETTING UP OF A THREE JUDGE COURT FOR THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THIS CAUSE (2-27-69)

 The mandate for and the procedure to be followed in setting up a three judge district court is delineated in Section 2284, Title 28, U.S.C.A.

 The gist of Haughey's allegations and claims against Rhay and the defendant Fuller (Fuller) is that of internal administrative action and disciplinary management of the Washington State Prison by the two officials, being federally illegal and unconstitutional rules, regulations, action and nonaction thwarting Haughey in presenting legal claims to the courts, and adverse to his health. The gist of his allegations and claims against the defendant, Maxey (Maxey), is that Maxey and Rhay conspired to prevent him in having access to the courts by refusing opportunity to have the trial transcript and court records.

 The federal duties owed Haughey in this respect by the prison authority are delineated by the following language of the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S. Ct. 747, 21 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1969):

 
"There is no doubt that discipline and administration of state detention facilities are state functions. They are subject to federal authority only where paramount federal, constitutional or statutory rights supervene. It is clear, however, that in instances where state regulations applicable to inmates of prison facilities conflict with such rights, the regulations may be invalidated."

 These same federal duties were delineated in Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9 Cir. 1961).

 Hatfield also tells us that a three judge district court must be convened where an attack is made on the constitutionality of an administrative order or action of general application representing the custody state's policy but not where state policy is not involved.

 Haughey does not allege any facts, nor does it appear from the substance of his petition and claims that he can on amendment, that tends to place the possible issues in this cause under the purview of Section 2284, supra, or the teachings ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.