Sellars Et Al. v. Beto, Corr. Dir., 409 U.S. 968 (1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Sellars Et Al. v. Beto, Corr. Dir., 409 U.S. 968 (1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Charles H. Shields v. Joseph S. Hopper, Warden, Georgia State Prison, State of Georgia (ca5, 1975-09-24) · Strongest negative: Alford Lee Cunningham v. Russell Jones, Jailer (ca6, 1977-12-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Alford Lee Cunningham v. Russell Jones, Jailer (4×)
6th Cir. · 1977 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1971), rehearing denied en banc, 456 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 968 , 93 S.Ct. 279 , 34 L.Ed.2d 233 (1972), and Ford v. Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison, 407 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1969). 32 With all of this said, the cases which apply most strongly are two Eighth Amendment cases, one of which concerns lack of adequate medical treatment for a prisoner and the other the administration of punishment by Arkansas prison authorities by beating prisoners with a leather strap.
discussed Cited "see" Charles H. Shields v. Joseph S. Hopper, Warden, Georgia State Prison, State of Georgia (2×)
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 968 , 93 S.Ct. 279 , 34 L.Ed.2d 233 (1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schroeder v. Kaplan
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Sellars v. Beto, 409 U.S. 968, 969 (1972) (solitary confinement, in cell 24 hours a day, only fed bread and water, no mattress); Rodgers v. Thomas, 879 F.2d 380, 385 (8th Cir.1989) (no toilet or sink, clothing confiscated, only allowed to shower once every five days, no mattress); French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir.1985) (shackled to bed, sometimes stripped, denied right to use toilet, had to lie in own excrement, no mattress), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 817 (1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matthews v. Murphy
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 968 (1972) (holding that conditions in which inmates could bathe only three times a week, and where the inmates received toilet paper, toothbrush, and toothpaste, were not so unsanitary to rise to the level of a Eighth Amendment violation); but compare Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.1974) (Eighth Amendment violated where naked prisoner was placed in small, unclean cell without light, hygienic material, bedding, or adequate food, and where prisoner was not allowed to wash himself).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Calvin Sellars and Fred Arispe Cruz, Etc.
v.
George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections
71-6789.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 24, 1972.
409 U.S. 968
Brennan, Douglas, Marshall.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The motion of The National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall concur,

dissenting.

I vote to hear this case because it raises substantial questions of law in the area of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Petitioners are inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections (T. D. C.). They brought a class action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of:

(1) a T. D. C. regulation barring all inmate assistance in preparation of legal work;

(2) the primitive conditions of the solitary confinement as administered by the T. D. C.

The District Court denied relief, Novak v. Beto, 320 F. Supp. 1206 (SD Tex. 1970).

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed as to the prohibition on prisoners’ legal assistance, holding that the State had not met its burden of providing alternatives to assure access to the courts as required by Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969).

A divided court affirmed the constitutionality of the conditions of solitary confinement. Novak v. Beto, 453 F. 2d 661 (1971). A motion for a rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied March 8, 1972, six judges dissenting. Novak v. Beto, 456 F. 2d 1303.

If we are to believe the facts as stated by petitioners, and for purposes of review we must, a prisoner placed in solitary confinement in Texas will find himself in a shockingly primitive condition.

[*969] The cell is kept in complete darkness 24 hours a day. A barred iron gate backed up by a wooden door blocks all light and prevents any human contact with those in the hall.[1] Within this black interior is a combination toilet-water basin and a steel bunk. The bunk has no mattress although the prisoner is given a blanket. The cell is otherwise bare. The inmate is fed on a bread and water diet with one full meal every 72 hours.[2] He is clothed only by a cloth gown. In addition to those conditions, which were considered inhumane at the time of Charles Dickens, the prisoner has no opportunity to exercise; he is not permitted correspondence with family, friends, or lawyer; no visits are allowed and he is allowed no reading material of any kind.

The prisoner is not seen by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor before, during, or after confinement to solitary. And all deprivations involved in solitary confinement apply uniformly regardless of the individual’s background or criminal record or offense for which he is being punished.

A prisoner can be kept so confined for 15 days and re-confined after a two-day respite. Such practices as above described exist in all of Texas’ 14 correctional facilities.

[*970] The petitioners do not question the right of the prison to isolate inmates for cause but do challenge these practices.

Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 (1910), was a landmark in the definition of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. Robinson v. California made the Eighth Amendment binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 370 U. S. 660 (1962). We said that the “dignity of man” was the overriding value preserved by that clause. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100 (1958).

The fitness of punishment is to be judged by applying evolving standards, for the clause “is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice.” 217 U. S., at 378. What those standards are is now tendered. The extent to which the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment will apply in prison must also be determined. In Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972), we held that a bare allegation of onerous penal conditions is sufficient to require a hearing.

Lower courts have often dealt with the issue and have reached divergent results[3] without guidance from us. See Morales v. Schmidt, 340 F. Supp. 544 (1972).

[*971] Denial of the petition here in my view constitutes a travesty of justice. As Judge Tuttle stated in his dissent:

“I do not hesitate to assert the proposition that the only way the law has progressed from the days of the rack, the screw and the wheel is the development of moral concepts, or, as stated by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles, the application of ‘evolving standards of decency.’ ” Novak v. Beto, 453 F. 2d, at 672.[4]

I would grant this petition and put the case down for argument.

1

On July 10, 1972, the T. D. C. revised its regulations on the lighting and diet.

“50.92322 Lighting.
“The solid doors of the solitary cells will be left open. If an inmate becomes noisy and creates a disturbance the door will be closed. On some units the open doors create a security problem, and it is not practical to utilize this procedure. If this occurs, artificial fighting will be provided during the normal daylight hours.”
2

“50.9233 Diet.

“50.92331 Inmates in solitary [confinement] are to be fed twice a day a hot meal consisting of vegetables from the regular serving fine, and are to be given unlimited drinking water.”
3

Some lower courts have held that some conditions of imprisonment constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Wright v. McMann, 387 F. 2d 519 (CA2 1967), on remand, 321 F. Supp. 127 (NDNY 1970), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 460 F. 2d 126 (CA2 1972); Hancock v. Avery, 301 F. Supp. 786 (MD Tenn. 1969); Holt v. Sarver, 300 F. Supp. 825 (ED Ark. 1969); Barnes v. Hocker, No. R 2071 (Nev. Sept. 5, 1969); Jordan v. Fitzharris, 257 F. Supp. 674 (ND Cal. 1966). Contra: Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F. 2d 178, 192 (CA2 1971); Courtney v. Bishop, 409 F. 2d 1185 (CA8 1969); Ford v. Board of Managers, 407 F. 2d 937 (CA3 1969); Krist v. Smith, 309 F. Supp. 497 (SD Ga. 1970), aff’d, 439 F. 2d 146 (CA5 1971).

4

As stated by Judge Kaufman in Wright v. McMann, 387 F. 2d, at 526:

“We are of the view that civilized standards of humane decency simply do not permit a man for a substantial period of time to be denuded and exposed to the bitter cold of winter in northern New York State and to be deprived of the basic elements of hygiene such as soap and toilet paper. The subhuman conditions alleged by Wright to exist in the ‘strip cel! at Dannemora could only serve to destroy completely the spirit and undermine the sanity of the prisoner. The Eighth Amendment forbids treatment so foul, so inhuman and so violative of basic concepts of decency.”