that the teaching of black languages is precluded in the prison; that black social groups are precluded from entering the institution to provide plaintiffs with knowledge of the advancement of black society; and that the black prison population is held in involuntary servitude to preserve white culture and society.
In each and every instance, the various allegations asserted are conclusory in nature and are unsupported by any specific facts lending credence to the allegations contained. In essence, plaintiffs assert a constitutional right to establish their own distinct society within the prison, with special rules and regulations tailored to black persons as a class. The Constitution of the United States does not afford such a right.
Prison officials have wide discretion in matters of prison operation and discipline, and these matters are not under the supervisory direction of federal courts. Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967); Ford v. Board of Managers of New Jersey State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1969). Plaintiffs ask no less than that this Court undertake supervisory direction of the entire field of prison operation and discipline. This the Court will not do.
Where it can be said that a claim, on its face, is so utterly without legal merit that it should be condemned as frivolous, it properly may be dismissed. Davis v. Brierley, 412 F.2d 783 (3d Cir. 1969). The allegations of the Complaint are highly conclusory and wholly lacking in specific facts supportive of the allegations. An appropriate Order is entered.
Now, this 6 day of August 1970, the Clerk of Court is directed to file the instant Complaint in forma pauperis and the same is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is also denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.