Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
224 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McNeil v. City of Easton, 694 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Pa. 2010)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 215 Dismissal of civil rights complaints for lack of facts47 citing cases“to state facts in support of its conclusions.”4 citing courts quote it · 45 listed here
  • McNeil v. City of Easton, 694 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Pa. 2010).published
    The Court of Appeals cited its decision in Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir.1967) where it dismissed a Section 1983 complaint as insufficient because the charge of a beating was made against the defendants generally and not again…
  • Frazier v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 785 F.2d 65 (3d Cir. 1986).published 2 cites
    “to state facts in support of their conclusions”
  • Darr v. Wolfe, 767 F.2d 79 (3d Cir. 1985).published
    Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir.1981); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922 (3d Cir.1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-1276 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Negric…
  • Demetrius v. Marsh, 560 F. Supp. 1157 (E.D. Pa. 1983).published
    See, e.g., Hall v. Pennsylvania State Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir. 1978); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922-23 (3d Cir.1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-76 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93…
  • Roman v. Appleby, 558 F. Supp. 449 (E.D. Pa. 1983).published
    While the general rule in this circuit is that civil rights complaints must be plead with specificity, Hall v. Pennsylvania State Police, 570 F.2d 86, 89 (3d Cir.1978); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922-23 (3d Cir.1976); Ne…
  • Sturts v. City of Philadelphia, 529 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Pa. 1982).published 2 cites
    Ross v. Meagan, 638 F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir. 1981); Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, et al., 532 F.2d 920, 922-23 (3d Cir. 1976); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1981).published 2 cites
    (dismissing prisoner's civil rights complaint as "broad and conclusory" because of its "failure to state facts in support of its conclusions.)
  • Mayberry v. Somner, 480 F. Supp. 833 (E.D. Pa. 1979).published
    Gray v. Creamer, 465 F.2d 179 , 182 n.2 (3d Cir. 1972); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Larry Charles Glouser v. Robert F. Parratt, Warden, & Jerry Wright, Adjustment Comm. Chairman, 605 F.2d 419 (8th Cir. 1979).published
    See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 83-185, 83-1107 (Reissue 1975); see also Douglas v. Sigler, 386 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1967); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Kedra v. City of Philadelphia, 454 F. Supp. 652 (E.D. Pa. 1978).published
    The Third Circuit has endorsed this view in a long line of decisions, 24 applying it to “broad and conclusory” allegations (Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967)) that are “without facts upon which to assess the substantiality…
Show 35 more citing cases
  • MacMurray v. Bd. of Trs. of Bloomsburg State Coll., 428 F. Supp. 1171 (M.D. Pa. 1977).published
    Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-1276 , (3d Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Elliott v. Bloor, 425 F. Supp. 1140 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    See Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d 920, 922 (3d Cir. 1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275-76 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Pitrone v. Mercadante, 420 F. Supp. 1384 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275-76 (3d Cir.) cert. denied 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Burke v. Green, 422 F. Supp. 350 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    This total absence of specific allegations with respect to other constitutional violations fatally flaws plaintiffs’ pleadings, cf. Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1971); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275 (3d Cir.), cert. denie…
  • Ahmad v. Levi, 414 F. Supp. 597 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed.2d 84 (1970); see Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1971); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967); Everett v. City of Ches…
  • Gill v. Gill, 412 F. Supp. 1153 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    It is the well-settled rule in this Circuit that civil rights actions must be specifically pleaded in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275 & n.13 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93…
  • Padover v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 412 F. Supp. 920 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    Turning to defendants’ contention that the allegations of the complaint *924 are insufficiently precise to state a claim under either Section 1983 or Section 1985, it plainly is the rule in this Circuit that Section 1983 actions must be sp…
  • Commonwealth v. Wallington, 357 A.2d 598 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).published
    “Prison officials have wide discretion in matters of prison operation and discipline”
  • Sprague v. Fitzpatrick, 412 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Pa. 1976).published
    It is, of course, the rule in this circuit that Section 1983 actions must be specifically pleaded in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270 , 1275 & n.13 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93…
  • Vazquez v. Ferre, 404 F. Supp. 815 (D.N.J. 1975).published
    Esser v. Weller, 467 F.2d 949, 950 (3d Cir. 1972); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3d Cir. 1970); Negrich v. Holvn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Harold Polite v. Donald Diehl & Walter Lofstrom, as Individuals & as Officers of the McKeesport Police Dep't. Harold Polite v. William Rendulic, 507 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1974).published
    Zachry Company v. O'Brien, 378 F.2d 423, 426 (10th Cir. 1967) 23 In Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272, 282-284 (3d Cir. 1964), we affirmed a directed verdict in favor of the defendants where the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient identifi…
  • Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1974).published
    In Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967), we affirmed the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint as insufficient because of “its failure to state facts in support of its conclusions.” See too, Esser v. Weller, 467 F.2d 949, 950 (3d Ci…
  • Brown v. Farview State Hosp., 386 F. Supp. 607 (E.D. Pa. 1974).published
    See Esser v. Weller, 467 F.2d 949, 950 (3d Cir. 1972); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3d Cir. 1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F. 2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Gettleman v. Werner, 377 F. Supp. 445 (W.D. Pa. 1974).published
    Constitutional Rights of an employee in a penitentiary may be diluted by the specialized requirements of discipline, safety and security, and a federal court “[should] be reluctant to intervene in matters of state prison administration, re…
  • Campbell v. Patterson, 377 F. Supp. 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).published
    Cf. Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14, 15-16 (3d Cir. 1971); Finley v. Rittenhouse, 416 F.2d 1186 (9th Cir. 1969); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967); Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1965); Carlisle v. Bensinge…
  • Tunnell v. Wiley, 369 F. Supp. 1260 (E.D. Pa. 1974).published
    Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
  • Downs v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 368 F. Supp. 454 (E.D. Pa. 1973).published
    Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270, 1275-1276 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 84 (1970); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3 Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 861 , 90…
  • Smallwood v. United States, 358 F. Supp. 398 (E.D. Mo. 1973).published
    The statement of the court in Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir. 1967) is particularly applicable: "The complaint is insufficient because it is broad and conclusory.
  • Berry v. Hamblin, 356 F. Supp. 306 (M.D. Pa. 1973).published
    Carr v. Sharp, 454 F.2d 271, 273 (3d Cir. 1971) ; Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967). 3 .
  • Henry Howell v. Cataldi, 464 F.2d 272 (3d Cir. 1972).published 2 cites
    At best, there was proof of wrongful conduct of one, identified only as one of two possible actors, without an explicit identification as to which of the two. 66 ***** 67 * * * 68 In Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967), we di…
  • Dixon v. Pennsylvania Crime Comm'n, 347 F. Supp. 138 (E.D. Pa. 1972).published
    Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir. 1967).
  • Eisman v. Pan Am. World Airlines, 336 F. Supp. 543 (E.D. Pa. 1971).published
    Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967); Powell v. Workmen’s Comp.
  • United States of Am. Ex Rel. Alex Birnbaum v. Edward J. Dolan, 452 F.2d 1078 (3d Cir. 1971).published
    In Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir. 1967), while determining that a pro-se complaint would be dismissed, the Court held that “The complaint is insufficient because it is broad and conclusory.
  • Frank J. Marcedes, Jr. v. Thomas E. Barrett, Clerk of Courts, 453 F.2d 391 (3d Cir. 1971).published 2 cites
    On March 17, 1967, the President Judge wrote plaintiff that when the transcript had been “completed, a copy will be forwarded to the Institution where they will be available for inspection upon request of the Officials there.” 3 The compla…
  • Heckart v. Pate, 52 F.R.D. 224 (N.D. Ill. 1971).published
    As in Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (Third Cir. 1967), a civil rights complaint requires factual allegations and conclusions and broad generalizations are not sufficient.
  • Miller v. Purtell, 289 F. Supp. 733 (E.D. Wis. 1968).published
    See Douglas v. Sigler, 386 F.2d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 1967); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir. 1967); United States ex rel.
  • Martin v. Delaware Law Sch. of Widener Univ., 625 F. Supp. 1288 (D. Del. 1985).published
    See Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3rd Cir.1967), Chicarelli v. Plymouth Garden Apartments, 551 F.Supp. 532, 539 (E.D.Pa.1982).
  • Shirey v. Bensalem Twp., 501 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Pa. 1980).published
    (Allegations of specific actions by “defendants” were insufficient because that court concluded that “all defendants could not have inflicted the beatings at the times and places indicated)
  • Trader v. Fiat Distributors, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Del. 1979).published
    See Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, supra at 922-23; Kauffman v. Moss, supra at 1275 ; Negrich v. Hohn, supra at 215.
  • Warren Curtis v. Angus Russell Everette, 489 F.2d 516 (3d Cir. 1973).published 2 cites
    See Negrich v. Hohn 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3d Cir. 1970); Esser v. Weller, 467 F.2d 949, 950 (3d Cir. 1972).
  • John Louis Mertz v. Warren Pinto, Former Superintendent of the New Jersey State Prison Farm, 459 F.2d 1041 (3d Cir. 1972).published
    See Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967). 4 .
  • Edmund Winkler v. Samuel W. Pringle & the Pennsylvania R.R. Co., Edmund Winkler v. Samuel W. Pringle & the Pennsylvania R.R. Co. the Pennsylvaniarailroad Co., 387 F.2d 380 (3d Cir. 1967).published
  • Simmons v. Maslysnky, 45 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Pa. 1968).published
  • Norman C. Gray, Jr. v. J. Shane Creamer, Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 465 F.2d 179 (3d Cir. 1972).published
  • Salvadore Rotolo v. The Borough of Charleroi (Two Cases), 532 F.2d 920 (3d Cir. 1976).published
Other citing cases7 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Robert W. NEGRICH
v.
William R. HOHN, Warden, Westmoreland County Prison, Marshall V. Benjdich, Asst. County Detective, Edward F. Singer, Pennsylvania State Police, Alex W. Copeland, Sheriff, Westmoreland County, John Marefka, Prison Guard, Westmoreland County, Richard E. McCormick, District Attorney, Westmoreland County
No. 15705.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jun 16, 1967.
Published opinion
379 F.2d 213
1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5978
Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant., H. Reginald Belden, Greensburg, Pa., and Gilbert J. Helwig, Pittsburgh, Pa., for all appellees except Singer., Thomas J. Reinstadtler, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Egler, McGregor & Rein-stadtler, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee Singer.
Sheridan.
Cited by 150 opinions  |  Published
SHERIDAN, District Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from orders of the district court dismissing his complaint against six State and County officials in an in forma pauperis action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

While plaintiff was confined in the Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, prison awaiting trial for armed robbery, a prison breach occurred and a guard was beaten. Plaintiff was indicted for prison breach and felonious assault. He was acquitted of the armed robbery. After four days of trial on the prison breach and assault charges, at which he was represented by the same counsel who had defended him on the armed robbery charge, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty.

The defendants are: State Policeman Edward F. Singer and Westmoreland County officials, District Attorney Richard E. McCormick, Sheriff Alex W. Copeland, Warden William R. Hohn, Assistant County Detective Marshall V. Brajdich,[1] [2] John Marefka, Prison Guard.[3] By amended order dated September 24, 1965, the district court dismissed the complaint against Copeland, Marefka and McCormick, and by order dated October 7, 1965, the district court dismissed the complaint against Hohn, Brajdich and Singer.

The complaint makes broad charges that all defendants inflicted upon the plaintiff “a cruel and unusual punishment for some (approximately) 120 days while plaintiff was in defendants’ custody awaiting trial” because he would not sign a statement that he was involved in a prison break; that he pleaded guilty because he was in fear for his life as a result of cruel and “inhuman” punishment; that the defendants in charge of the prison put plaintiff on bread and water for some 30 days; that defendants repeatedly beat plaintiff and forced him to sign a statement;[3] that defendants denied plaintiff the right to see his attorney ; that defendants had false charges placed against plaintiff. Warden Hohn is specifically charged with placing plaintiff in solitary confinement on a restricted diet.

The Civil Rights Act protects a person who under color of state law is deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution[*215] and laws by making those responsible liable in damages. This court has upheld a dismissal of a complaint by a state prisoner in a Civil Rights case where the allegations were broad and conclusory, and unsupported by factual allegations. “And allegations that the defendants arbitrarily thwarted appellant’s efforts to obtain or protect his legal rights through the courts are rightly said by the trial court to be ‘ * * ■* conclusory in nature’. Factual documentation supporting such a conclusion would of course present a far different situation.” United States ex rel. Hoge v. Bolsinger, 3 Cir. 1962, 311 F.2d 215. And in Pugliano v. Staziak, W.D.Pa.1964, 231 F.Supp. 347, aff’d 3 Cir. 1965, 345 F.2d 797, a complaint in a Civil Rights ease was dismissed for failure to allege specific facts. Accord Richardson v. Rivers, 1964, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 333, 335 F.2d 996; Birnbaum v. Trussell, 2 Cir. 1965, 347 F.2d 86.

The complaint is insufficient because it is broad and conclusory.[4] Its insufficiency lies in its failure to state facts in support of its conclusions. The charges of beatings and cruel and unusual punishment are made against the defendants generally and not against any particular defendant. It is apparent that all defendants could not have inflicted the beatings at the times and places indicated. Marefka and McCormick were named in the caption, but not in the body of the complaint. Copeland was named in the caption, but mentioned in the body only once.[5] The allegation that the defendants deprived plaintiff of the right to counsel is general and conclusory and indicates merely an attempt by plaintiff to dictate when and where he should be permitted to confer with his counsel.[6]

Plaintiff claims Warden Hohn put him in solitary confinement after plaintiff signed the statement and after he was given a preliminary hearing on the prison breach charge. This indicates disciplinary action. No facts are alleged in support of a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Prison officials have wide discretion in matters of prison operation and discipline. “Discipline reasonably maintained in * * * [state] prisons is not under the supervisory direction of the federal courts. Kelly v. Dowd, 140 F.2d 81 (7 Cir. 1944). There is nothing in the circumstances related to indicate any reasonable basis for interference with the state authority, even though appellant’s claim is under the guise of violation of his constitutional rights.” Gurczynski v. Yeager, 3 Cir. 1964, 339 F.2d 884; Cole v. Smith, 8 Cir. 1965, 344 F.2d 721; United States ex rel. Atterbury v. Ragen, 7 Cir. 1956, 237 F.2d 953.

The false charges against plaintiff are attributed to all defendants. The[*216] nature of these charges is not disclosed. This allegation is broad and conclusory.

The orders of the district court will be affirmed. Since the order dismissing the complaint against Hohn, Brajdich and Singer is affirmed for reasons other than those given by the district court, this court does not preclude the district court, within its discretion, from permitting the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against Hohn, Brajdich and Singer. 3 Moore, Federal Practice para. 15.08 [4] (2d ed.).

1

Misspelled as Benjdich in the complaint.

2

Judge Keim of Westmoreland County was also a defendant. The action against him was dismissed in a separate order from which no appeal was taken.

3

The statement was not used at the trial.

4

Appellant prepared his own complaint, which was received in the Clerk’s office on May 11, 1965. On May 18, 1965, the court appointed experienced and able counsel to represent appellant.

5

“9. On November 21, 1963, after the defendants forced plaintiff to sign a statement, they then took plaintiff out to a hearing before Magistrate Margaret S. Bossart. At said hearing the plaintiff asker Sheriff Copeland if his attorney was coming to the hearing. The Sheriff then asked defendants William R. Sohn and Edward F. Singer if they contacted plaintiff’s attorney, and Benjdich stated: ‘No they hadn’t’ they said they felt plaintiff would have time to see his attorney before going to Court.”

6

.“6. Plaintiff was denied the right to see his attorney by the said defendants on November 18, in front of the District Attorney’s office. Plaintiff wanted to speak to his attorney, Mr. James Nardell, Esq., who was outside of the district attorney’s office. Plaintiff stopped and asked to speak with his attorney and was refused by Penna. State Policeman Edward F. Singer, who statrted pulling plaintiff by his coat, plaintiff then asked his attorney to please come over to the Jail to see him. Attorney James Nardell, Esq., then said not to do anything until he speaks to me. Plaintiff then said ‘OK.’ Then Trooper Singer started pulling while County Detective Marshall V. Benj-dich, was still pulling on plaintiff, the attorney hollered out to me that he would check and see what this was all about and ‘I’ll be over to see you.’ Plaintiff never did see an Attorney and was refused the right to call one until he would confess.”