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.

BROOKS v. KLEIMAN

July 31, 1989

GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS
v.
J. KLEIMAN, et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KELLY

 JAMES McGIRR KELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 The court has now considered the testimony that has been presented in this case, and is prepared to make its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision.

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. On May 12, 1988, plaintiff was on E Gallery at Graterford Prison, which is a disciplinary area of the prison.

 2. On May 12, 1988, a correctional officer attempted to have another prisoner placed in the same cell with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to allow the double-celling.

 3. The plaintiff was charged with misconduct for failing to comply with an order of a correctional officer.

 4. On May 16, 1988, a hearing on the aforesaid misconduct was afforded the plaintiff and the hearing examiner awarded the plaintiff an additional 30 days in the disciplinary section for failing to obey an order of a correctional officer.

 5. The plaintiff did not ask for an witnesses or representatives to be present at the aforesaid disciplinary hearing until after the examiner had announced her decision.

 6. The reason advanced by the plaintiff that he should not be double-celled is that he has several cases of legal materials currently in his cell and also as a Muslim, his religion requires him to perform certain services several times a day and it is his belief that in view of the foregoing, it would not be possible for him to practice his religion or protect his legal papers if a second person was placed in his cell.

 7. On May 19, 1988 a correctional officer again ordered him to permit double-celling and the plaintiff refused to allow double-celling in his cell.

 8. On May 31, 1988 the plaintiff was given a misconduct for failing to follow the orders of a correctional officer due to the May 19, 1988 refusal by the plaintiff.

 9. On May 31, 1988 at the hearing on May 19, 1988 misconduct, the plaintiff was given an additional 30 days restrictive housing as a result of his refusal to carry out the order of May 19, 1988.

 10. Plaintiff complains, and the superintendent admits, that the prisoners in E Gallery are given less than ...


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.