Davis v. Lindsay Complaint

    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 > {