Victor H. Gurczynski v. Howard H. Yeager, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, & George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg State Prison Farm, 339 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Victor H. Gurczynski v. Howard H. Yeager, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, & George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg State Prison Farm, 339 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Howard v. Craven (cacd, 1969-11-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. Craven
C.D. Cal. · 1969 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Beto, 383 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1967); Burns v. Crouse, 339 F.2d 883 (10th Cir.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 925 , 85 S.Ct. 930 , 13 L.Ed.2d 811 (1965); and Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884, 885 (3rd Cir. 1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ford v. Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison
3rd Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
Urbano did not appeal. . 339 F.2d 884, 884-885 (3 Cir. 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ford v. Board of Managers of New Jersey State Prison
3rd Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
The District Court denied the motion on the ground that there was no showing that Urbano was an indispensable party 7 Ford v. Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison, Civil No. 946-67, D.N.J., April 30, 1968 8 Urbano did not appeal 9 339 F.2d 884, 884-885 (3 Cir. 1964).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oliver H. Rigney, Edward Moore, Clifton Sturdivant and James Moore v. Edward J. Hendrick, Supt. Edward Moore, Oliver H. Rigney, Edward Moore, Clifton Sturdivant and James Moore v. Edward J. Hendrick, Supt. Clifton Sturdivant, Oliver H. Rigney, Edward Moore, Clifton Sturdivant and James Moore v. Edward J. Hendrick, Supt. James Moore, Oliver H. Rigney, Edward Moore, Clifton Sturdivant and James Moore v. Edward J. Hendrick, Supt. Oliver H. Rigney, Roosevelt Morris v. James C. Crumlish, Jr. George Higgins Johnson A/K/A Leonard George Hamilton v. Edward J. Hendrick, Supt.
3rd Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
There is a system of communication between the two sections by which requests are transmitted by the police to the guards and by which the voices of the inmate-suspects, responding to questions of name and age, are heard by the viewers.' Morris v. Crumlish, 239 F.Supp. at 498-499 (E.D.Pa., 1965). 3 See Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884, 885 (C.A. 3, 1964), where we held that discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervisory direction of the federal courts
cited Cited "see" Rigney v. Hendrick
3rd Cir. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gurczynski v. Yeager, 339 F.2d 884, 885 (C.A. 3, 1964), where we held that discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is not under the supervisory direction of the federal courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Victor H. GURCZYNSKI, Appellant,
v.
Howard H. YEAGER, Principal Keeper, New Jersey State Prison, and George Goodman, Superintendent, Leesburg State Prison Farm
14987_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Dec 18, 1964.
339 F.2d 884
1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3531
Victor H. Gurczynski, pro se., Eugene T. Urbaniak, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J. (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, on the brief), for appellee.
McLaughlin, Staley, Hastie.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the complaint in this cause by the district court. The complaint alleges violation of appellant’s civil rights by the prison authorities of the State of New Jersey. Specifically appellant states that he was not given psychiatric treatment as had been suggested by the sentencing state judge. He also says that his request to be transferred from a New Jersey state prison farm to the state prison at Trenton was not granted. Finally, he complains that after he became intoxicated and escaped from the prison farm, he was punished by being placed in solitary confinement on a restricted diet in the state prison itself. The district judge allowed the complaint to be filed without prepayment of costs. After examining it, the court dismissed it as being without merit. We are convinced that such course was proper.

The face of the complaint does not present any involvement of appellant’s federal rights. What is alleged concerns New Jersey state prison operation and discipline. Discipline reasona-[*885] íbly maintained in those 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. United States ex rel. Morris v. Radio Station WENR, 209 F.2d 105 (7 Cir. 1953). See also Curtis v. Jacques, 130 F.Supp. 920 (D.C. W.D.Mich.N.D.1954); Grove v. Smyth, 169 F.Supp. 852 (D.C.E.D.Va.1958); Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632 (9 Cir. 1961).

The judgment of the district court will ibe affirmed.