Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

441 F.2d 1154

Docket No. 19168.

Hanvey v. Pinto

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted on Briefs March 19, 1971.

Decided May 7, 1971.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-05-07

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Trop v. Dulles · Wright v. McMann · Church v. Hegstrom

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-05-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 1992

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

190197119801990decided

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 →

¶1*1155George Hanvey, pro se.

¶2George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, by Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., for appellees.

¶3Before BIGGS and KALODNER, Circuit Judges and WHIPPLE, District Judge.

¶4OPINION OF THE COURT

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his complaint by the district judge who found the action failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the time the action was dismissed Hanvey was a prisoner at the New Jersey State Prison at Rahway. The complaint is brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and it seeks to remedy the alleged arbitrary and unconstitutional withholding of good time credits by prison officials who transferred Hanvey from one prison job to another, which afforded him less of an opportunity to earn good time credits.

¶7While it is essential to prove in any action • brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that federally protected rights have been violated, this court cannot eon-elude that the transfer of an inmate of a state prison from one wing to another and the consequent change of prison jobs involved any federally protected rights. Discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervision of federal courts unless such actions are so severe as to require constitutional protections. Ford v. Board of Managers of N. J. State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1969); Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1964). In addition, the alleged denial of good time credit as evidenced in this case is a far cry from those “cruel” and “inhuman” acts which cross the imaginary line from permitted to prohibited types of prison discipline. See, Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Burns v. Swenson, 430 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1969); Wright v. McMann, 387 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1967).

¶8The order of the district court dismissing the appellant’s action will be affirmed.

/441/f2d/1154 · .json · Public domain