Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

319 F.2d 844

Docket No. 388, Docket 27598.

Pierce v. LaVallee

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued June 17, 1963.

Decided July 18, 1963.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1963-07-18

2 counsel of record

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on James Pierce v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Martin T. Sostre v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, William Sa Marion v. J. E. La Vallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1963-07-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1987

7 federal appellate ·

50196319701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Edward W. Jacko, Jr., New York City, for appellants.

¶2Lester Esterman, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the State of New York (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Irving Galt, Asst. Sol. Gen., and Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and CLARK and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Plaintiffs appeal from Judge Brennan’s second dismissal of their action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court’s first dismissal (unreported) was reversed by us because it had been entered without taking testimony, 2 Cir., 293 F.2d 233. The present order was made after a very extensive trial. While inmates at Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, plaintiffs were leaders of the “Muslim Brotherhood” — a self-organized and self-styled group having as its avowed object the study and furtherance *845of Islam, but which also had overtones of secrecy and intrigue. When the prison officials discovered the existence of this organization, they disciplined the three plaintiffs for “agitating.” The district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that their punishment resulted from their religious beliefs was not clearly erroneous; and so we must affirm.

¶6Affirmed.

/319/f2d/844 · .json · Public domain