Davis v. Lindsay Complaint
Public Court Documents
October 1, 1970

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Davis v. Lindsay Complaint, 1970. bc9103fe-ae9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3e16bc9c-05d5-4754-a034-aaa9447222aa/davis-v-lindsay-complaint. Accessed May 13, 2025.
Copied!
LV> 'cr.?H6 ? 3 't t w o i *risrtf a «r - ?o «0|-4»xotA ut 33>; 2jf*uxsfd uodr. extOTq,»ya'4«3J! xeoa-d x^T0,*dsf Pur- txor^^fr:t69» xwtod £>ax&'odarf vxaj squKpuajop irfofuo 0*4 ■isuops-mCut xtsoû ajssstf pa-: I'-r^TWTxazd puv’ .zapao fiutureJtqcex a -ts^oox-Ô ^rsw.&pnC /ax^B:rero©p 1 e sh»o» uopaa fixup, •soacqs pô T̂ ft .3° uo^rax^suoD ex. sqasapustuy ti^u«^JtuOa puy tn u w *nW«Ta 'qjsrcg '■p^no.a ’aexrJr ©tr.. ...rjpt.m pus; Aq peqsxTqxrjs© sa^q-funtiauf pu« so&evTAZJd #3qq5xa puaqs.* pm: ©.TRpas 04 £861 5 -0“3*f! '£*• »T3T£ paaxsGqqua e©lr«xp pus j.^rx©^ /3 0 .̂b.T2X^»P ptre SAr!;>»m(!uT joy xxotqo« tra sx b x ' t, £S£J«aXY*LS AaVKJTfTISUd : sx/ntoj. sv rrosrriY 's ^ e o j^ aan xs * ddi&xxw.d y UJIVIJs'iOD - ■' / L ‘At'") (//• £? Lj /•' * \J iC,r< ‘ CH X3CRH •y————---— * «s XU:?pu ejaci J:{IOT MUK 50 O^^VS Stf* 3° SUOX^OOX-XOD 40 •.■‘ uacixxBdoa ocn. 3:0 xauoTS8XE-j.;or> s c p aa k x i^ n p x A x p u j 's iH iJ io o w qnvd M-^o a m»k j o Aaxp sqx 30 uoxqtisqsct 30 ©snare a.uotupj.i eqq JO qtrapuoqatTxadng sb pus AxT©np fa -x p u x 4tmovH sa s i s s a r a »h j o a ^td ©tf4 jo 8uoxq;j«xxco J ° qaoarjaedaq ©uq 30 rSUOXS3T3tU50£> SB PUB AxrBt*PTATE'"rjt *12 AY JOi- K6XI0S3 *H*©A MSN JO A^TD sqq :to st? put? Axx*nP7ATPuT #AVSCBin *A MICr -qsirysfcB- 'jgpTquxBT^ 'SIAYCF *A Via&HY x---- 3Tjoa irti'j 3:0 xoraisia nhsisinos ssj, ĉ.i ■iHflco .sC'Ikasici sajLYLS asiiim shz hi and Fourteenth A'raendinonts to the Constitution of the United States. Declaratory relief is autliorized by Title 28, U.S.C. § 2281 and § 2202. II JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of this action is based upon Title 28, U.S.C. § 1343(3/ and (4); Title 28, U.S.C. § 1331/ and upon the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Ill PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, a resident of California, and citizen of the United States, is a former assistant professor of philosophy ou the faculty of the University of California. Plaintiff has been and is an outspoken exponent of the rights of prisoners and of the need to institute radical reforms -within society generally and with respect to prison conditions specifically. IV DUFSNIPVTC . 1. Defendant John V. Lindsay is Mayor of the City of New yDrk and in his capacity as Mavor has overall responsibility for the conditions prevailing in the Women's House of Detention and | In other prisons in the City of New York. He is nleo responsiblet for the conditions in the prison which specifically relate to plaintiff. Defendant lindssay further appoints the heads of all Kgw York City Departments and C02vmi3sionero— including the Com missioner of Corrections— pursuant to Section 6 of the hew YorK City Charter, and such officials are answerable to the authority of defendant Lindsay. 2. Defendant George McGrath is the Commissioner of Correc tions of the City of Eew York and is in control of the Women’s House of Detention. By virtue of such authority, supervision and control, he is directly responsible for the unconstitutional conditions alleged to exist in this complaint with respect to plaintiff. Pursuant to Section 623 of the Hew York City Charter, defendant McGrath has power and authority concerning care, cus tody and control of institutions in the City of How York where adult persons arc held in detention charged with crimes. 3. Defendant Jessie Behagen is the agent of defendant McGrath who maintains direct day-to-day control of the prison conditions in the lioroeu* s House of Detention. Said defendant in directly responsible for each and every violation of plaintiff s constitutional rights as described in this complaint by v.i.». v.uc o.t1 her authority, as described in Section 623 (I)-1.0 of the Hero York City Administrative Code. 4. Defendant Paul McGinnis is the Commissioner of Correc tions for the state of New York and pursuant to tie Hew York State Corrections Lav, § 46(7)(a), he has the authority to pro mulgate rules and regulations establishing minimum care, custody, t i correctional treatment, supervision, and discipline for all per sons confined in local correctional institutions. (Under state law, the Women’s House of Detention ic- such a " ̂ocuj. Instiincion- ) V FACTS 1. Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States and resident of the State of California, currently contesting attempts to extradite her to California where she is sought to stand trial on pending charges. Plaintiff has been convicted of no criminal offense, either in New York or in California. 2. Pending the outcome of said extradition proceedings, plaintiff was ^ilacod in the custody of the police of the City of New York and in the custody of the defendants and taken to the Women's House of Detention, at Eighth Street and Greenwich Avenue, New York, New York. 3. During the initial perkod of plaintiff’s incarceration, she was placed in the section of the women’s Bouse of Detention generally reserved to inmates who are emotionally or psycholog ically disturbed. 4. At : o time did defendants make a determination that the plaintiff was emotionally or psychologically disturbed such as tc justify her incarceration with disturbed inmates. 5. From the time of her initial incarceration on October 13, 1970, until Octclier 22, 1970, plaintiff was unable to sleep because of the constant loud screaming aid other noises made by the inmates in the seccion reserved to the psychologically dis- turbed. 6. / Dae to the disturbed nature of thes© fellow inmates, plaintiff wan unable to communicate with her fellow prisoners during this entire period thus placing her in virtual isolation, j 7. P3.aintiff was moved to a normal call block in the Women' 3 House of Detention housing additional inmates on October 22, on which day plaintiff was allowed to mingle and converse with other inmates. 8. The following day, October 23, 1970, defendant McGrath ordered plaintiff to be placed in solitary confinement in a small cell. 9. Plaintiff is now presently held in solitary confinement where she is forbidden to see or to receive anyone from inside or outside the prison, other than her attorneys and her sister. 10. On information and belief, under the rules of the Women's House of Detention, inmates who do not have families in New York are permitted six visitors on a rotating basis. 11. From the time of her incarceration until October 22, 1970, plaintiff was permitted visitors under this rule. 12. On October 22, 1970, without explanation, plaintiff's attorneys were informed by defendants that plaintiff would no longer* bo permitted visitors under the six visitor rule. 13. A request by plaintiff's attorneys for- a copy of the rules and regulations governing the Women's House of Detention was refused by defendants, seriously hampering the ability of counsel to represent plaintiff's interests effectively in this matter. 14. On the 23rd day of October, 1970, plaintiff's friend and professor, Herbert Marcuse, came to visit plaintiff accoa- i panied by plaintiff1 & attorney. Though tho details of the visit had been specially arranged,by the superintendent of the House of Detention and plaintiff's social worker, defendant McGrath ordered that Pro?©**** Itareas* wan to be denied permission to visit plaintiff Davie, 15. As differentiated fron other inaatee in the Worsen‘a Ebuse of Detention, plaintiff ic forced to eat her meals alone in her cell, her cell is marched, without cause or reason, three times a day, she is required to wear institution clothes instead of street clothes, and a corrections officer under the direction of defendant McGrath is stationed outside plaintiff® ceil door twenty-four hours a day under instructions to record plaintiffs activities in a log book every half hour and record the name and badge number cf every officer that speak* to plaintiff. 16, Plaintiff is denied permission to use tlw» recreational ***** except for on© hour each morning and one hour each evening °n th'3 r&of of ths <5«tenU<m center. During these trips to the rxxjf, plaintiff is .accompanied by a corrections officer. At no tir.e during these recreation periods are other inmates present. 17- Plaintiff** privacy is routinely invaded in that when receives a visit from her sister, a corrections officer stand within five feet of plaintiff, monitoring their visit. 16. Defendants haves placed restrictions on plaintiff’s right to receive mail. Prior to October 27, 1970, she we.,* denied ”v<mt to hor b>' fri^ » a® wall &* by publishing organic®. Sines that time plaintiff has be en permitted to receive l^ks evil/ on a restricted, basis. She is permitted only s boohs in her cell at a tine. At least one bcok rout to her, "fiolcdad Brother. *** be*n Withheld, Since defendant* will not inform her what "30CL‘* 8‘:® 3̂a* revived, there any bo others that are M - vf with held Without plaintiff»s tawlodge. Plaintiff has also been denied certain newspapers in her cell. Plaintiff has not received from defendants all the mail which has been sent to her by her relatives and friends. Plaintiff's counsel mailed a letter to plaintiff Davis on October 20, 1970. Plaintiff received the let ter eight days later, and only after a complaint to defendants by plaintiff's counsel. 19. For one hour a day, when the other inmates are forbid den to enter, plaintiff is permitted to visit and use the library. 20. Unlike other inmates, plaintiff is not permitted access to television. She is not permitted to enter the inmates' day- room where television sat3 are kept for the use of inmates. 21. Plaintiff is denied access to reputable members of the press who have sought to interview plaintiff, and who are pre cluded from visiting plaintiff by the arbitrary refusals of plaintiff *s custodians. 22. Plaintiff is denied access to a telephone to make such calls to persons, including her attorneys, as she may wish or need to make in order to maintain relationships interrupted by their detention, to consult with counsel, to prepare their defenses, to transact their business* and to carry on their lives as fully as possible, 23. Plaintiff, birough her counsel, has complained of these dehumanizing conditions, and others, to defendants but to no avail. On October 23, 1970, and October 26, 1970, plaintiff's attorneys sought to see defendant Bohagen to complain of these conditions but said defendant refused to see them. 24. Plaintiff has received no justification of the heavy restrictions and solitary confinements placed upon her. There are no indications that these measures were taken for plaintiff's benefit and protection. 25. The foregoing restrictions, prohibitions, and punish ments have taken place prior to plaintiff's conviction of any crime. 26. The foregoing restrictions were all imposed without noti ce or opportunity to be heard. 27. Plaintiff's attorneys have attempted to obtain redress of these grievances by appeals to defendants but these appeals have been fruitless. 23. In desperation over her plight, plaintiff has refused to partake of food since October 24, 1970, in the hope that this act will call attention to the suffering solitary confinement and restrictions have imposed upon her, in particular, and to tho notoriously had conditions in New York prisons, in general. CAUSES OP ACTION VI FIRST CAUTK OP ACTION As and for a FIRST cause of action, plaintiff alleges: 1. That on the 23rd day of October, 1970, the defendants placed plaintiff in segregation, isolating her completely from the rest of tho orison population and imposed onerous restrictions upon her lilorsry, recreational e mail and other privileges without notice of charges or opportunity to be heard. 2. Further, the restrictions ware imposed without reference to any infraction or violation by plaintiff of any prison disci plinary rules and in the absence of any statutory or other pro visions authorising or permitting such segregation. 3. This action by defendants constitutes a breach of plaintiff's right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. VII S3C0ND CAUSE OF ACTION As and for a SECOND cause of action., plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parts II-V, and further alleges: 1. That defendants' confinement of plaintiff in solitary confinement, apart from all other inmates without any cause what soever and without any need to protect, or otherwise benefit, plaintiff, is arbitrary, capricious, irrational and unrelated to any valid governmental, purpose, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. VIII THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION As and for a THIRD cause, of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parts II-V, and further alleges: 1.' That defendants’ imposition of restrictions upon plain tiff different from those generally applicable to other inmates in the Women's House of Detention without a rational basis for distinguishing between plaintiff and other inmates creates invidious distinctions in violation of the equal protection clame of the Fourteenth Amendment. IX FOURTH GAUSS OF ACTION As and for a FOURTH cause of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parts II-V, and further alleges: 1. That on the 13th day of October, 1970, the defendants took plaintiff into custody and incarcerated her at the Women's House of Detention. At said prison, defendants ordered plain tiff to be placed in the "psychiatric ward" of the Women's House of Detention despite their knowledge that plaintiff was sane ana was not in need of psychiatric care. 2. Upon information and belief, the purpose of plaintiff's placement into the psychiatric ward whereby she came into fre quent contacts with persons suffering from mental and emotional disorders was to subject plaintiff to conditions which could only serve to destroy completely her spirit and to undermine her sanity. 3. The actions of the defendants in incarcerating plaintiff4 in the section of the Women's House of Detention where she could bo exposed to the unpredictable actions of the emotionally and psychologically disturbed represented an attempt at complete subjugation of plaintiff's mind and pos?d a demonstrated risk of tho loss of he:.* sanity. 4. This attempted subjugation of plaintiff and efforts to torture hor by committing her to the psychiatric ward instituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of present standards of decency and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitu tion of the United States. X FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION As and for a FIFTH causa of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parrs II-V and further alleges: 1. That on the 23rd day of October, 1S70, plaintiff was removed to the coll in which eh© Is presently incarcerated. For the greater port of each twenty-four hour period, plaintiff is required to impend her life in solitude within the four walls of said coll. Plaintiff is completely cut off from all the other inmates of the Women's House of Detention who suffer similarly to plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff, since her present imprisonment, fits been denied tba elementary right of eating, reading, and talking with her fellow inmates. Plaintiff is required to forego her right of daily recreational activities with the other imprisoned women and instead she is forced to carry out her recreational activities alorc. 3. The isolation and solitude of plaintiff is complete; prior to October 27, 1970, plaintiff was denied permission to read in hor cell books sent to hor end cha iu forbidden to use the library or ito resources except for a one-hour period when the other inmates are absent. 4. -Despite the status of plaintiff as an accused, she, like prisoners convicted of crimes, retains all her rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, except those taken away by law, so that defendants' actions in placing plaintiff in solitary confinement, prohibiting her from associating with said inmates and from exercising her right of free expression in conversations with her fellow inmates consti tutes a deliberate infringement of plaintiff's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. XI SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION t r - -i ' i n i an i - i mi ■ rr i r i As and for a SIXTH cause of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Farts JI--V, and further alleges t 1. Defendants have constantly denied plaintiff the right to as© and read the books and letters which have been sent to her from friends and publishing companies. Defendants have restrict© the right of plaintiff to read books in her cell. All access to television is prohibited. Plaintiff has been denied as well the right to read certain newspapers in her c?ell. The denial to plaintiff of her right to free access to written material and / other communications is a flagrant violation of tb*» First and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. XII SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION As and for a S£VE>JTH cause of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set i . . . forth in Parts II-V and further alleges* 1. That defendants* solitary confinement of plaintiff and imposition of burdensome restrictions on her axe done solely to punish plaintiff for her political views and political associa tions and affiliations posing an unconstitutional burden upon the exercieo of a federal right of expression and association, all in violation of plaintiff’s righto under the First and Four teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. XIII EIGHTH CRUSE OF ACTION As and for an EIGHTH cau3« of action, plaintiff incorporates arid realleges as if fully sot forth herei.n tho allegations net forth in Parts II-V and further alleges: 1. That the present onerous restrictions imposed upon plain tiff go beyond any necessary requirement of prison discipline to encroach upon the fundamental right of privacy and freedom from gratuitous humiliation at the hands of the state guaranteed by the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. : XIV NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION As and for a NINTH cause of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parts II-V and further alleges: 1. That the constant round-the-clock surveillance of plaintiff, as well a3 the searches of her cell three times a day without any justification constitute petty harassment and are unreasonable searcheg within the meaning of the Fourth and Four teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. XV TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION O As and for a TENTH cause of action, plaintiff incorporates and realleges as if fully set forth herein the allegations set forth in Parts II-V and further alleges: 1. That the arbitrary and unreasonable refusal of defend ants to provide plaintiff's attorney with a copy of the rules and regulations governing the Women's House of Detention severely hampers plaintiffs attorney in her ability to represent plain tiff effectively. 2. The continual presence of a guard under defendants' control during attorney-client interviews are a great hindrance to open and free communication between plaintiff and her attorney on matters connected with the preparation of plaintiff's case. 3. Defendants' interference with correspondence between plaintiff and her attorney obstructs the client-attorney rela- i p. 4. Defendants' imposition of solitary confinement and stringent restrictions on plaintiff has the effect of enervating and debilitating plaintiff to a point that she is unable to communicate well with her attorney when attempts are made at consultation. 5. These actions by defendants deprive plaintiff of her right to the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Consti tution . XVI RELIEF 1. Plaintiff has made repeated protests and complaint* with respect to her treatment and solitary confinement and the abridgement of her constitutional rights, but defendants have failed to pay heed to her complaint*. Subsequently, plaintiff has been compelled to seek redress and vindication of ner funda mental rights under the Constitution from this Court. 2. Only injunctive relief from this Court will be effective to bring to an end the abusive and arbitrary treatment of plain tiff in violation of her constitutional rights. 3. No previous application for the relie f sought herein has been made to this or to any other court. No adequate administra tive remedy or adequate remedy at law is available to plaintiff to remedy violation of her constitutional righto. i WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court* (a) Assume jurisdiction in the present action. (b) Declare that the (i) solitary confinement and separation of plaintiff from other inmates; (ii) restriction of plaintiff's visitation rights; (iii) restriction of plaintiff's mail; (iv) withholding of plaintiff's books and other reading material; (v) unnecessary searches of plaintiff's cell; (vi) 24-hour surveillance of plaintiff; and other abusive treatment of plaintiff as outlined in this complaint is unlawful and in violation of plaintiff's constitu tional rights. (c) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering defendants to; (i) release plaintiff from solitary confinement and transfer her to the prison area generally reserved for detainees; (ii) permit plaintiff her normal rights to access to day-room and recreation facilities; (iii) restors plaintiff's right to visit with persons other than family members; (j.v) cease from restricting plaintiff’s mail and with holding plaintiff's books and other reading material; (v) remove the 24-hour corrections officer assigned /i to watch plaintiff; (vi) provide plaintiff ar.d har lawyers with copies of any and all rules and regulations governing inmate conduct at the house of Detention? (vii) provide plaintiff and her attorneys with up- to-date* - s list of all book3 and any other X:Lteratuxo mailed i ■ to plaintiff and Received by the House of Detention\ (vii.i) cease front imposing any other restrictions on plaintiff which arc not. imposed on other detainee inmates. (d) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants from confining plaintiff in tho psychiatric ward. (o) Maintain continuing jurisdiction of this action and require tho defendants to report to tho court any further trans fers or other special conditions and restrictions imposed on plaintiff, (f) Grant damages to tho plaintiff in the sum of $250,000 for grossly abusive physical and psychological treatment inflicted upon plaintiff while incarcerated in violation of her constitu tional rights to bo free from cruel and unusual punishment and to due process of the lav/ and equal protection of tho law. (g) For such other unci further relief as uhis Court shall from time to time deem necessary. Dated: October f 1570, Re»sp{jcttn 11 y ubmi ttocl, a i m u: ct b. .... it; !•... * i ■. \:tt:uibGTob i. i • . 1. ,.D ail*. Li,v> , .anal Conference of Dlach \} ' *;wyors*? •* West ItOth fit root j.? V • , J , . "fork- Mrw* York .10027 : MARGORET BURNHAM STAR:EY DA.to ,'•10 C o 1 u it b u s C i r c 1 c N o v .• York, I Tew York 10019 f AM: c •no vs For r] mi nt > {