Haines v. Kerner Appendix

Public Court Documents
May 28, 1971

Haines v. Kerner Appendix preview

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Haines v. Kerner Appendix, 1971. 1b99971b-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6e6286ea-ab30-463c-b6dd-dfdc6d18253e/haines-v-kerner-appendix. Accessed June 17, 2025.

    Copied!

    (Hour! of t t y  Ittitrh t̂ataa
October T e r m , 1970

N o. 5940

F ran cis  H a in e s ,
Petitioner,

Otto  J .  K e r n er , F orm er  Governor, Sta te  of I l l in o is ,
et  AL.

Respondents

ON w r it  o f  certio ra ri to t h e  u n it e d  sta tes  court  o f
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 1970 
CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 8, 1971



(Emtrt uf tlye

Petitioner,

Otto  J .  K e r n er , F ormer Governor, State  of I l lin o is ,
e t  AL.

Respondents

on  w r it  o f  c ertio ra ri to th e  u n it e d  states court  of

October Te r m , 1970 

No. 5940

F rancis H a in e s ,

ormer Governor, 
e t  AL.

APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

I N D E X
Page

Record from the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Illinois

Docket Entries __________________________________ 2
Complaint, filed July 1, 1968 ----------------------------------- 7
Motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, filed

July 23, 1968 ___________________________________  20
Motion to amend motion to dismiss, filed November 8,

1968 ___________________________________________  23
Order denying motion for default and allowing motion

to amend motion to dismiss, dated November 8, 1968 .. 25
Motion for leave to file admissions and interrogatories,

with affidavit and notice, filed November 15, 1968 ---- 27



Page
Record from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Illinois—Continued

Request for admissions and interrogatories, filed No­
vember 21, 1968 __ - .........-__________________  3 1

Order dismissing complaint, entered December 19, 1968 .. 58
Order denying motion for hearing, entered January 8 

1969 ---------------------------------------------------------------  60
Motion for leave to file and prosecute appeal in forma 

pauperis, filed January 31, 1969 _________________  61
Notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, 

filed February 13, 1969 _________________________  62
Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit __________________________________ 65
Opinion, Enoch, J., May 25, 1970 1________ ;_______ ________ 65
Judgment, May 25, 1970 ______ ____________ ___________  67
Order denying rehearing, June 19, 1970 __________________  68
Order granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and granting petition for writ of certiorari _________ ___ 69

11 INDEX



1

Civ il  D ocket

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CV 68-83-D

Jury demand date: July 1, 1968

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f  

vs.
Otto  J .  K e r n er , Former Governor, State of Illinois, Chi­

cago, Illinois; Ross V. R a n d o lph , Director of Public 
Safety, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois; Max P. 
F rye , Warden; Le w is  C. Le n c e , Assistant Warden; 
J e f f ie  B iggs, Assistant Warden; P aul  V. Sy m pso n , 
Senior Guard Captain; R ussell  L e n c e , Guard Cap­
tain; E. R ogers, Guard Lieutenant; D onald Ge n t s c h , 
Record Clerk; W illia m  S h e e t s , Commissary Officer; 
P aul  T. D u n c a n , Guard, all of the Illinois State Pen­
itentiary, Menard, Illinois, 62259, d efendants

For Plaintiff:
Francis Haines, Pro Se, Register No. 16348, Illinois 

State Penitentiary, Menard, 111. 62259

For Defendants:
Jeffie Biggs, Paul V. Sympson, & Russell Lence, Otto J. 

Kerner, Ross Y. Randolph, Max P, Frye, Lewis 
Lence, E. Rogers, Donald Gentsch, William Sheets 
and Paul Duncan: John Sorrentino, Asst. Atty. Gen., 
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., State of Illinois, 160 
N. LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois 60601



2

Statistical Record Costs Date

J.S. 5 mailed July, 1968 
J.S. 6 mailed
Basis of Action: Civil Rights- 
T.42, USC, Secs. 1981, 1983 
& 1985.
Action arose a t : Menard, 111.

Clerk Forma Pauperis 2/13/69
Marshal
Docket fee

Witness fees 
Depositions

Name or 
Receipt No. Rec. Disb.

F. Haines 5.00 5.00 
Notice Appeal

GS 2411 
CD# 29D 

2/17/69

Date Proceedings

1968

June 11 Petition to file civil complaint in forma pauperis 
received and handed to the Court for considera­
tion.

July 1 Motion for Leave to File and Prosecute in Forma 
Pauperis and Other Relief, filed.

July 1 Order Granting Motion for Leave to File and Prose­
cute in Forma Pauperis, entered. (WISE, J) 
Certified copies to Francis Haines, Atty. General 
William Clark.

July 1 Complaint filed.
July 1 Motion for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem filed.
July 1 Summons issued and mailed for service, together

with copy of Order showing case filed in forma 
pauperis.

July 10 Marshal’s return of service made on July 3, 1968 
filed. (Service not made on defendants Kemer 
and Randolph)

July 15 Marshal’s return of service on defendant Otto J. 
Kerner, same served 7/8/68.



3

Date

1968 
July 23

Aug. 2 
Aug. 2

Aug. 2 
Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Aug. 2

Sept. 6

Oct. 25 
Oct. 25

Oct. 25

Nov. 8

Proceedings

Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum, on 
behalf of Defendants Otto J. Kerner, Ross V. 
Randolph, Max P. Frye, Lewis Lence, E. Rogers, 
Donald Gentsch, William Sheets and Paul Dun­
can, filed.

Motion for Leave to Proceed on Used Paper, filed.
Notice and Proof of Service of filing answering 

brief, filed.
Answering Brief on Motion to Dismiss, filed.
Notice and Proof of Service of Ancillary Petition 

for Writ of Injunction, filed.
“Motion for Leave to File and Prosecute Ancillary 

Petition for Injunction in Forma Pauperis and 
Upon Used Paper Such as This” filed, with forma 
pauperis affidavit.

Copies of all above pleadings received and forward­
ed to Attorney General William G. Clark, Spring- 
field, 111.

Marshal’s return on service of summons, service 
made on Ross V. Randolph, Director of Public 
Safety, State of 111., on 9/4/68.

Notice and Proof of Service filed.
Motion for Default Judgment Against Named De­

fendants, with Affidavit & Memo., filed. Defts. 
named in Motion are Jeffie Biggs, Paul Sympson 
& Russell Lence.

Copies of above Notice, Motion, Affidavit and Memo, 
received and forwarded to Attorney General Wil­
liam G. Clark.

Motion to Amend Motion to Dismiss filed. Motion 
to Dismiss should also be the motion of defend­
ants Biggs, Sympson and Lence.



4

Date

1968 
Nov. 8

Nov. 15

Nov. 15

Nov. 20 

Nov. 20 

Nov. 20 

Nov. 20

Proceeding’s

Order Denying Motion for Default and Allowing 
Motion to Amend to Dismiss, entered. (WISE, J.) 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for 
default be, and is hereby denied; IT IS HEREBY 
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to amend 
motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, allowed; IT 
IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the 
plaintiff is granted an addiitonal 20 days to file 
any additional or supplemental brief to the motion 
to dismiss, and the defendants are to answer said 
brief within 20 days after the filing of any supple­
mental brief. Certified copies to plaintiff and to 
William G. Clark, Atty. General of 111.

Notice, Proof of Service, and Motion for Leave to 
File Interrogatories Against Certain named De­
fendants pursuant to Rule 38, Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, and Motion for Leave to File 
Admissions against Certain Named Defendants, 
pursuant to Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, with affidavit attached, filed.

Copy of Notice, Proof of Service, and above motions 
and affidavit mailed to Wm. G. Clark, Attorney 
General of the State of Illinois

Motion for Leave to Proceed on Used Papers and 
affidavit, filed.

Supplemental Brief in Opposition to the Motion to 
Dismiss, filed.

Notice and Proof of Service of Motion, Affidavit and 
Supplemental Brief, filed.

Mailed copies of Notice and Proof of Service, Mo­
tion and Affidavit, and Supplemental Brief, to 
Wm. G. Clark, Attorney General of the State of 
Illinois



5

Date Proceedings

1968
Nov. 21 Request for Admissions under Rule 36, Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and Request for Inter­
rogatories pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, directed to Defendant Ross V. 
Randolph, filed.

Nov. 21 Request for Admissions pursuant to Rule 36, Fed­
eral Rules of Civil Procedure and Request for 
Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, directed to Defendant 
Max P. Frye, filed.

Nov. 21 Request for Admissions Pursuant to Rule 36, Fed­
eral Rules of Civil Procedure, and Request for 
Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, directed to Defendant 
Russell Pence, filed.

Nov. 21 Request for Admissions pursuant to Rule 36, Fed­
eral Rules of Civil Procedure, and Request for 
Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, directed to Defendant 
William Sheets, filed.

Nov. 21 Request for Admissions pursuant to Rule 36, Fed-

Dec. 9

eral Rules of Civil Procedure and Request for 
Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, directed to Defendant 
Donald Gentsch, filed.

Motion for Leave to Present Slip Opinion in Wright 
v. McMann, No. 31023 . . . .  and Short Discussion 
of Pertinent Provisions Thereof, filed, with Notice 
and Proof of Service.

Dec. 9 Affidavit in Support of Motion, filed. Copy of Mo­
tion and Affidavit and Notice sent to Atty. Gen­
eral William G. Clark, at Chicago, Illinois.

Dec. 20 Order entered December 19, 1968, allowing Motion 
to Dismiss and dismissing cause of action (WISE, 
J) Copies to Plaintiff and to Attorney General, 
Chicago, 111. JS # 6  issued.



6

Date

1969 
1/ 7/69

1/ 8/69

1/31/69

2 / 4/69

2/13/69
2/13/69
2/13/69

2/13/69

2/13/69

Proceedings

Notice and Proof of Service, Motion to Reconsider 
and Set Aside the Order of the Court, entered 
December 19, 1968, Dismissing the Complaint 
Upon Allowance of Defendants Motion to Dis­
miss, filed. Copy mailed to Attorney General, 
Chicago, 111.

Order Denying Motion for Rehearing entered— 
Ordered that the motion for reconsideration and 
setting aside of order dismissing complaint en­
tered Dec. 20, 1968 is denied (Wise, J.) Copies 
mailed to Mr. Haines and Attorney General, 
Chicago, 111.

Motion for Leave to File and Prosecute Appeal in 
Forma Pauperis, Pursuant to Title 28, USC, Sec. 
1915(a) and Rule 75(a), FECP, with Affidavit 
in Forma Pauperis in Support of Motion for 
Allowance of Appeal in Forma Pauperis, filed and 
handed to the Court for consideration, with 
Notice and Proof of Service, Directions to the 
Clerk for Service of Notice of Appeal, Notice of 
Appeal, and Praecipe for Transcript of Record 
on Appeal attached thereto.

Order Denying Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis, 
entered. (WISE, J) Certified copies to Mr. Haines 
and to Attorney General of State of Illinois.

Notice of Appeal filed.
Praecipe for Transcript of Record on Appeal filed.
Directions to the Clerk for Service of Notice of 

Appeal filed.
Notice and Proof of Service, sent by Plaintiff 

Frances Haines, filed.
Clerk’s Certificate of Maiilng Notice of Appeal, filed.



7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

Civil Action No. CV68-83D 

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f

vs.
Otto  J .  K e r n er , Former Governor, State of Illinois, Chi­

cago, Illinois; Ross V. R a n d o lph , Director of Public 
Safety, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois; Max P. 
F rye, Warden; Le w is  C. Le n c e , Assistant Warden; 
J e f f ie  B iggs, Assistant Warden; P aul  V. Sy m pso n , 
Senior Guard Captain; R ussell  Le n c e , Guard Cap­
tain; E. R ogers, Guard Lieutenant; D onald Ge n t s c h , 
Record Clerk; W il l ia m  Sh e e t s , Commissary Officer; 
P a ul  T. D u n c a n , Guard, all of the Illinois State Pen­
itentiary, Menard, Illinois, 62259, d efendants

Co m pla in t—filed July 1, 1968 
(Trial by Jury Demanded of All Issues so Triable)

Francis Haines, complaining of the defendants states:
The action arises under the Constitution and Laws of 

the United States, and in particular as follows: United 
States Constitution, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, 
thereto; United States Code, Title 42, Sections 1981, 
1983 and 1985(2); and the decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court in construing them.

The Jurisdiction of this Court is specifically invoked 
as follows:
A— To recover damages for the deprivation, under 
color of State Law, of rights, privileges and immunities 
guaranteed and secured by the Constitution and Laws 
of the United States, under the guise of regulation, eus-



8

tom or usage, pursuant to Title 28 U. S. C. Section 1343 
(3) and Title 42 U. S. C. Section 1983.
B— To recover damages for the deprivation, by reason 
of a conspiracy, of rights, privileges and immunities, 
guaranteed and secured by the Constitution and Laws 
of the United States, pursuant to Title 28 U. S. C. Sec­
tion 1343(1) and Title 42 U. S. C. Section 1985(2)
C— Absent diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional 
amount, pursuant to:

Hague v. C. I. 0., 307 U. S. 496;
Douglas v. Jeanette, 319 U. S. 157.

D— To inquire into prison rules and the internal disci­
pline of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois.

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U. S. 546;
Cooper v. Pate, (CCA 7) 382 F. 2nd 519;
Wright v. McCann, (CCA 2) #31023, F. 2nd. 
Gordon v. Garrson, (E. D. 111.) 77 Fed. Supp. 477; 
Application of Middlebrooks, (D.C. Cal.) 88 Fed. 

Supp. 943;
Cf. United States v. Jones, (CCA 5) 207 F. 2nd. 785.

E— Of the defendants residing without the Eastern 
District of Illinois, Title 28 U. S. C. Section 1393(2)
F— For a declaration of the rights privileges and im­
munities of the plaintiff, Title 28 U. S. C. Section 2201.

The cause of action has arisen in the past two years. 
Plaintiff is a natural born citizen of these United 

States, born at Blairstown, Iowa, June 1, 1902; and 
has served in the United States Army as such, Army 
Serial Number 721, 839; and is now confined in the 
Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, as No. 16348.

The defendants are officers and employees of the State 
of Illinois, respectfully as follows:
A— The defendant Kemer, between the dates of March 
10 and May 19, 1968, was duly elected Governor of the 
State of Illinois.
B— The defendant Bandolph is the duly appointed Di­
rector of Public Safety of the State of Illinois.



9

C— The defendants Frye, Lewis C. Lence, Jeffie Biggs, 
Paul Y. Sympson, Russell Lence, E. Rogers, Donald 
Gentsch, William Sheets, and Paul T. Duncan, are em­
ployees of the Department of Public Safety of the State 
of Illinois and in the capacities set forth in the title 
hereof.
D— The defendants Max P. Frye, Lewis C. Lence, Jeffie 
Biggs, Paul V. Sympson and Donald Gentsch, are mem­
bers of the Progressive Merit System of the Illinois State 
Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, and in full charge of the 
application thereof.

At all times hereinafter complained of the defendants 
were acting in their official capacities, and under color 
of state law, regulation, custom or usage, and by virtue 
of their official positions, deprived the plaintiff of his 
rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed and secured 
by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, and 
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 
construing them.

That at divers times subsequent to and including 
March 10, 1968, the defendants herein conspired, each 
with the others or adopted the acts of the others, for the 
purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing and defeat­
ing the due course of Justice in the State of Illinois, with 
intent to deny the plaintiff of his rights, to be treated in 
accordance with due process of law and to deny him the 
equal protection of the law, that the acts set forth here­
inafter, in accordance with the said conspiracy, were will­
ful and malicious, and designed to discriminate against 
the plaintiff and deprive him of his rights, privileges 
and immunities guaranteed and secured by the Constitu­
tion and Laws of the United States, and in particular 
as follows:
A— To be free from Cruel and Unusual Punishments 
as secured by the Eighth Amendment, and Section 1, 
Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution.
B— To Due Process of Law as secured by the Con­
stitution of the United States, Section 1, Fourteenth 
Amendment.



10

C— To Equal Protection of the Laws as secured by 
the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, Four­
teenth Amendment.
D— To the full and equal benefits of all laws and 
proceedings for the security of persons as guaranteed 
and secured by Title 42 U. S. C. Section 1981.
E— To be free from deprivation, under color of state 
law, regulation, custom or usage, of fights, privileges and 
immunities guaranteed and secured by the Constitution 
and Laws of the United States, Title 42 U. S. C. Sec­
tion 1983.
F— To be free from deprivation, by reason of any con­
spiracy, or rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed 
and secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United 
States, and in particular the right to the due course of 
Justice in the State of Illinois, Title 42 U. S. C. Sec­
tion 1985(2).
C— The right to be tried by due process of law, and if 
found guilty, to be sentenced and punished in accordance 
with the Laws of the State of Illinois, Screws v. United 
States, 325 U. S. 91; Williams v. United States, 341 
U. S. 97.

The Constitution of the State of Illinois, (1870) Ar­
ticle II, guarantees the following as being within the 
due course of Justice in the State of Illinois.

‘2. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or 
property without due process of law.
“3. The right to trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed, 
shall remain inviolate.
“8. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal 
offense, unless on indictment of a grand jury, except 
in cases where the punishment is by fine, or imprison­
ment otherwise than in the penitentiary.
“9. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall 
have the right to appear and defend in person and 
by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the 
accusation; to have a copy thereof; and to have



11

process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his 
behalf; and a speedy public trial by an impartial 
jury of the county or district in which the of­
fense is alleged to have been committed.
“10. No person shall be compelled in any criminal 
case to give evidence against himself, or to be put in 
jeopardy twice for the same offense.”

The said constitutional provisions in Illinois are supple­
mented by the provisions of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 
1967, Criminal Law and Procedure, Chapter 38, Division 
III, Title I to VII, pages 1590 to 1613, governing trial 
procedures in criminal cases.

The Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Chapter 38, Divi­
sion II, Article 12.1 Sections 2 to 6, defines the crime of 
Assault and Battery and sets the legal penalties therefore.

The Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Chapter 38, Divi­
sion I, Article 25-1, Sections 25-1(3) states that an as­
sembly of two or more persons without authority of the 
law, for the purpose of exercising correctional powers 
over any supposed violation of the law, constitutes mob 
action and is a misdemeanor.

By the Act of June 29, 1885, it was provided that the 
several Courts of Will County, Illinois, had cognizance of 
all crimes committed in the Illinois Penitentiary. Such 
act was prior to Menard, but subsequently the Illinois Re­
vised Statutes, 1949, Chapter 108, Paragraph 108, gave 
cognizance to courts in other counties in which contained 
penitentiaries.

The Legislative History of the use of Solitary Confine­
ment in Illinois as a means of penal discipline is as 
follows:
A— Act of January 6, 1827:

“Sec. 13: The said Warden, and other officers, agents, 
and servants, shall each of them have power to order 
any convict to solitary confinement, for misbehavior, 
refractory conduct, idleness, negligence, in perform­
ing their daily task, impertieent or improper lan­
guage, or breach of any of the rules and regulations; 
and shall immediately report the same to the arden,



12

and the Warden shall punish such convict therefore, 
by solitary confinement, for any term not exceeding 
thirty days ,or many discharge the said convict from 
the imprisonment ordered by the said Warden, officer, 
agent or servants.”

B— By an Act of 1867, Sessions Laws, page 31, Illinois 
Statutes 1868, Section 37, Chapter 81, it was provided in 
the event that unusual punishment was to be inflicted it 
should be solitary confinement. Such reads:

“It shall not be lawful in said penitentiary to punish 
any convict by whipping in any case whatsoever, if, 
in the opinion of the Warden, it shall be deemed nec­
essary in that case to inflict unusual punishment in 
order to produce the entire obedience and submission 
of any convict, said Warden shall have power to pun­
ish said convict by solitary confinement in a dark cell 
and deprivation of food except bread and water until 
such convict shall be reduced to submission and obedi­
ence.”

C— By the Act of July 1, 1871, Illinois Revised Statutes, 
1925, Chapter 108, Section 37, it was provided:

“37. It shall not be lawful in said penitentiary to use 
any cruel or unusual mode of punishment or to punish 
any convict by whipping whatsoever.”

By the provisions of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1949, 
Chapter 108, Paragraphs 76 to 79, to prison doctor was 
required to examine all convicts regarding their physical 
condition and regarding their ability to work and to classi­
fy them into three classes or grades, first, second and 
third, nothing being said therein regarding disciplinary 
powers.

The current Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Chapter 
108 paragraphs 76 to 79, also provide for classification 
into three classes or grades, first, second and third.

On or about April 2, 1968, the defendant Gentach look­
ed at such above provisions and slammed the book shut 
before plaintiff.

The defendants Frye, Lewis C. Lance, Jeffie Biggs, 
Paul V. Sypmpson and Donald Gentsch, comprise the



13

Membership of the Progressive Merit System Board of 
the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, and all 
that is contained in the current Rule Book pertaining to 
such is as follows: (Good Time table omitted.)

“PROGRESSIVE MERIT SYSTEM.
“A ‘Progressive Merit System’ for the purpose of 
encouraging and rewarding good conduct and in­
dustry in the Division of the Illinois State Peniten­
tiary has been adopted by the Department of Public 
Safety.
“Under this system prisoners serving indeterminate 
sentences who are denied parole and their cases con­
tinued to future dates for further consideration may 
by good conduct and industry earn ‘Merit Time’ 
and thus advance the dates of review of their cases.
“In the event you receive a demotion you will lose a 
portion or all of your merit time earned towards a 
dated set,
“Merit Time is applied only to those continuances 
handed down by the Parole Board specifying a cer­
tain date. You cannot earn merit time on an un­
dated continuance.

PROMOTIONS.
“In the penitentiary there is a grade system con­
sisting of three grades. These grades are “A” “B” 
and “C”.
“On admission the inmate is placed in Grade “A” 
and while in Grade “A” may earn merit time. If 
an Inmate’s behavior is unsatisfactory he may be 
demoted to Grade “C” which will result in a loss of 
privileges for a period of one year and cannot earn 
merit time while in Grade “C”. In the event of de­
motion you must spend one year in “C” Grade, you 
are promoted to “B” Grade where you remain for 
one year before going to “A” Grade. No merit time 
can be earned in Grade “C”. You may earn five



14

days per month in “B” Grade and ten days per 
month in “A” Grade.
“In the event an inmate receives a dated continu­
ance from the Parole Board his next board date will 
be computed according to the following chart.’ ”

The facts of which plaintiff complains are as follows:
On March 10, 1968, plaintiff and two other inmates, 

Moore No. 30925 and Doherty No. 33371, were assigned 
to what- is known in Menard, as the Inside Yard Gang. 
The defendant Paul T. Duncan was officer in charge of 
such assignment.

Plaintiff and these other two inmates engaged in an 
argument in which it seemed to plaintiff that Inmate 
Moore was urging and inciting inmate Doherty against 
plaintiff. Several times it was said by both of these in­
mates that the “Young Blood” was taking over and that 
the “Old Blood like the plaintiff was done. Both of these 
men are approximately thirty years of age.

Plaintiff is sixty-six (66) years of age his next birth­
day and is approximately thirty (30) percent perma­
nently disabled due to the following foot- injuries: Left 
foot-—2nd. 3rd and 4th Cuboid Bones and 3rd Meta­
tarsal fractured, which resulted in an Ankylosis in the 
Cuboid Bones. Right foot—vertical fractures in the heel 
bones, discernable only by an X-Ray in a specific position 
of the foot. He was awarded compensation in a hearing 
before the Illinois Industrial Commission for these in­
juries.

After this argument had proceeded for a time plaintiff 
obtained an Inmate Pass from the Defendant Duncan 
to go and inspect a pile of cinders to see if it had thawed 
sufficiently or whether a pick was needed to breaking and 
loading on a truck. He also took a No. 2 long handled 
shovel.

He inspected the pile of cinders and found it needed 
a pick and returned to the Yard Gang Shack. Upon his 
return he inspected the shovel and found it had a clod of 
dirt in the heel. Immediately outside the door he banged 
the shovel on the concrete and dislodged this dirt.



15

When he entered the Yard Gang Shack Doherty and 
Moore resumed this argument and during this period 
Moore was very emphatic that the “Young Blood” such 
as him were taking over and that the plaintiff had better 
watch out or he would be hurt. Plaintiff told both of 
these men that they could hop on at any time they felt 
like it and he had never run and did not intend to start 
then. At this time the plaintiff was in the Yard Gang 
Showers, which is about Fifteen (15) Feet long and 
four (4) feet wide, with a concrete block wall on one 
side of it about three (3) feet high.

After plaintiff entered the bath room these other in­
mates approached him in a threatening manner and re­
sumed the argument. One of the two men asked him if 
he wanted to start something, plaintiff thinks it was 
Doherty. He then hit Doherty on the head with the 
shovel, inflicting cuts on his head.

When plaintiff hit Doherty Moore grabbed the shovel 
and threw it out from the bath room and then plaintiff 
and Moore had a scuffle. At this time defendant Duncan 
became aware of the trouble. He had been in the office, 
about fifteen (15) feet away and called out. This Moore 
broke off the scuffle and said what is the matter with 
you old man.

Defendant Duncan took Doherty into the back room 
to wash the blood from Doherty’s head and during the 
periods of his absence Moore kept making dire and fore­
boding threats of the consequences of plaintiffs acts. 
He was told that he could resume the matter any time 
he choose.

Inmate Orlando, No. 34527, witnessed these eevnts 
subsequent to plaintiff’s hitting the shovel on the con­
crete.

Subsequently the defendant Rogers came and walked 
plaintiff to what is known in the institutional vernacular 
as the hole or solitary confinement, which in recent years 
the officials call isolation.

Defendant Rogers took plaintiff before the defendant 
Russell Lence who was disciplinary officer that day. 
Plaintiff refused to explaine his actions other than to 
say he had hit Doherty with the shovel. He was locked



16

in an Isolation Cell until a report could be had from 
defendant Duncan.

When this report was had defendants Lence and 
Rogers called plaintiff before them again and read the 
report to him. Plaintiff objected to statements of Dun­
can that he had hit the shovel on the Yard Gang Shack 
floor and refused to discuss statement of Duncan that he 
had engaged with the other two men. Defendant Lence 
wanted to know why the plaintiff would hit Doherty 
and stated that it had been twenty-eight (28) years 
since plaintiff had been in the hole. When plaintiff re­
fused to talk to these officers he was given fifteen (15) 
days punishment, from March 10, to March 25, 1968.

This isolation, hole or solitary confinement consists of 
dark cells and the only difference plaintiff could see in 
the intervening twenty-eight (28) years between his 
trips to such were as follows: he was given three (3) 
blankets instead of two (” ) to sleep on a concrete floor; 
there had been a toliet installed instead of toilet buckets 
formerly used; that he received (2) slices of bread every 
morning and evening, along with a noon meal, instead of 
the four (4) slices of bread formerly received.

There was no articles of hygiene furnished him and 
his false teeth became so rancid he had to leave them 
out. No towel or soap was furnished.

On March 25, 1968, plaintiff was taken from the hole 
and taken to the cell house to pack up to move. He then 
received a grade demotion slip which stated he had been 
demoted to “C” Grade, which was dated March 12, 1968 
for his violation of the rules. No hearing before the 
Progressive Merit Board was held.

On March 27, 1968, plaintiff went to the inmates Com­
missary to get needed articles and was told by inmate 
Bond, No. 32163, that he could not trade because he was 
in “C” Grade, that he had traded on March 6, 1968. 
When plaintiff said he would take the matter to the 
courts he was laughed at and told to go ahead.

This inmate Bond is the defendant Sheets so-called 
right hand man and he places inmates Balances on their 
Commissary Slips although the rules, Rule 5, Commis­
sary Rules, states in part as follows:



17

“You will file past to Commissary Officer with your 
order in your hand, and after he has placed your 
balance on same, put your prints on the order in 
two places. * * *”

This is all the notification that plaintiff has received 
from any officials that he had lost his privileges and to 
date the priveleges lost are not known to him.

Plaintiff later wrote a letter of complaint to the de­
fendant Lewis C. Lence, stating that he had a definite 
sentence of life, that according to the Progressive Merit 
System such only applied to indeterminate sentences; 
that he could not earn any good time or merit time there­
under and that he though he should not be punished 
under a system which contained no benefits for him.

Several days later, on or about April 2, 1968, defend­
ant Gentsch called plaintiff to his office in regards to 
the letter to Defendant Lence. At this time plaintiff 
again objected to the application of the Merit System 
Rules against him, stating that he had served twenty- 
eight (28) and when they gave him good time for such 
period he would accept “C” Grade.

Defendant Gentsch pulled out a Ledger Book, fourteen 
(14) inches long, eight and a half (8%) inches wide 
and about three and a half (3 (4) inches thick, and 
opened it to a rule which he read and which stated any 
inmate could be put in “C” Grade. This rule is not in 
the inmates rule book.

Plaintiff objected that the provisions of the Illinois 
Revised Statutes, Chapter 108, Paragraphs 76 to 79 
which required classification into three classes or grades. 
First, Second and Third. The defendant opened a stat­
ute to such sections to such law and plaintiff called his 
attention to such. He closed the book before plaintiff 
could read the context.

Plaintiff said he would take the matter to the courts 
and defendant Gentsch humorously told him to do so.

Plaintiff has never been officially told by any officials 
of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, of 
the privelegs he was to be deprived of by his demotion 
to “C” Grade other than that by inmate Bond and there 
is nothing in the Rule Book concerning such.



18

Within the past two (2) years four inmates of the 
Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, have been 
tried for murder committed in the Inmates Dining Room, 
indicted in Randolph County and trial held in Sangamon 
County, Illinois; at least one (1) inmate was tried in 
Randolph County for a Prison Escape; and each of the 
said defendants have full knowledge of such trials.

The plaintiff has been deprived of his right to trial by 
the due course of Justice in the State of Illinois, which 
requires in part; notice and cause of the accusation; 
trial before a court of competent jurisdiction; right to 
aid of counsel; trial before an impartial jury; a sentence 
according to the laws of the State of Illinois; the right 
to make a defense against the charge; the right of an 
appeal if he so desires; and the acts of the defendants 
were under the color of state law, regulation, custom 
and usage and were in concert for the end and purpose 
of discriminating against him. and to coerce him with 
punishments not permitted by the Laws of the State of 
Illinois.

The plaintiff has been punished with the imposition 
of Cruel and Unusual Punishment not permitted by the 
Laws of Illinois by the said defendants acting under 
color of state law, custom, regulation or usage, and such 
acts were in concert for the end and purpose of discrimi­
nating against him.
_ The plaintiff has been arbitrarily classified by impo­

sition of the so-called Progressive Merit System, under 
which he can receive no benefits, and which is not listed 
in any of the Penal Provisions contained in the Laws of 
Illinois as a. punishment for crime, and that the acts of 
the said defendants were under color of state law, cus­
tom, regulation and usage, and such acts were in con­
cert for the end and purpose of depriving him of due 
process and equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiff suffered great physical anguish and pain 
due to his feet and circulatory trouble in his legs due to 
being forced to sleep on the concrete floor.

The defendant Randolph, as Director of Public Safety 
of' the State of Illinois, has full and complete authority 
over all defendants excepting Kerner, and makes the



19

rules and regulations pertaining to the Illinois State 
Penitentiary, under which the above acts took place.

The defendant Kerner, as Chief Executive Officer of 
the State of Illinois, was superior to all other defendants 
and could have cured all defects in their actions by exec­
utive order.

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS,

A) Damages to the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty 
Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars as punitive and exem­
plary damages for the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights 
under color of state law, regulation, custom and usage.

B) Damages to the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty 
Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars as punitive and exem­
plary damages for the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights 
by means of a conspiracy.

C) A Declaration of the Rights, Privileges and Im­
munities of Plaintiff in the circumstances.

D) Such other and further relief as Justice and Equity 
may require in the premises.

Respectfully submitted

,/s/ Frances Haines 
Plaintiff 
Reg. No. 16348 
Box 711 
Menard, Illinois



20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

No. CV-68-83D 

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F ran cis  H a in e s , p l a in t if f

vs.
Otto J . K ern er , et  a l ., defen da nts

M otion  to D ism iss  and Su ppo rtin g  Mem orandum—  
Filed July 23, 1968

Now come the defendants, OTTO J. KERNER, former 
Governor of Illinois; ROSS V. RANDOLPH, Director of 
Public Safety of Illinois; MAX P. FRYE, Warden, Men­
ard Penitentiary; LEWIS LENCE; E. ROGERS; DON­
ALD GENTSCH; WILLIAM SHEETS; and PAUL 
DUNCAN, prison officials and employees, by their at­
torney WILLIAM G. CLARK, Attorney General of the 
State of Illinois, and respectfully move this Honorable 
Court to dismiss the above-entitled cause, pursuant to 
Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief 
can be granted.

In support of the above motion, defendants respectfully 
submit the following memorandum of law.

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Illinois State Penitentiary, 
Menard Branch, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. sec­
tions 1981, 1983, and 1985(2), all being sections of the 
Federal Civil Rights Act, invoking the Court’s jurisdic­
tion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). Among such 
other relief as justice may require, he seeks punitive and 
exemplary damages in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED- 
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) from the named 
defendants.

In his rather verbose and obtuse complaint, plaintiff 
alleges that he has been arbitrarily classified into “C. 
Grade” under the Progressive Merit System, a system 
from which he contends he receives no benefits and should



21

not therefore be subject to its provisions. However, 
plaintiff totally misapprehends what has occurred, and 
therefore his purported issues are misleading. Pursuant 
to its rule making authority [1967 111. Rev. Stat., Ch. 
108, § 10], the Department of Public Safety has pre­
scribed that all prisoners shall be divided into three 
grades (“A”, “B” & “C” ). Upon admission an inmate 
is placed in “A” grade, and “ [i]f an inmate’s behavior 
is unsatisfactory, he may be demoted to Grade “C”, 
which will result in a loss of privileges for a period of 
one year and cannot earn merit time while in Grade “C”. 
[Petition p. 6]. This system pertains to all prisoners, 
whether they are serving a determinate sentence or an 
indeterminate sentence. If the latter is true, then a 
prisoner who is demoted to Grade “C” loses his privi­
leges and his right to earn merit time. If a prisoner is 
serving a determinate sentence, he loses only his privi­
leges.1 The question then is whether the operation of 
this rule has deprived plaintiff of any constitutional 
rights. The complaint shows that the plaintiff struck an­
other prisoner on the head writh a shovel; that he was 
twice asked to explain the incident; that he had both 
times refused to explain his action; that he was punished 
by demotion to Grade “C”, with the corresponding loss 
of privileges. (Complaint, pp. 7, 8, 9)

The complaint is thusly intimately concerned with in­
ternal prison administration. The law is well settled 
that except under “exceptional circumstances,” internal 
matters such as the conduct of a prison, the enforcement 
of its rules and regulations, its discipline, and the proper 
exercise of its discretionary powers, are the sole concern 
of the States, and the federal courts will not inquire 
concerning them. Walker v. Pate, 356 F.2d 502 (7th 
Cir. 1966), cert, denied, 384 U.S. 966 (1966); Knight 
v. Ragen, 337 F.2d 425 (7th Cir. 1963), cert, denied, 
380 U.S. 985 (1965); Childs v. Peg slow, 321 F.2d 487, 
489 (4th Cir. 1963). In view of the clear violation by 
plaintiff of a legitimate prison rule and regulation, to­
gether with the attendant reasonable disciplinary pun­

1 The respondent is informed that a prisoner so demoted loses 
his right to go to the movie and also his commissary rights.



22

ishment, the facts presented do not rise to the exceptional 
circumstances which are required for a federal Civil 
Rights suit. Moreover, the acts of prison officials, who 
being vested with wide discretion in safekeeping and 
securing prisoners committed to their custody and charged 
with the right and duty to maintain discipline among 
inmates, should be upheld if reasonably necessary to ef­
fectuate the purposes of imprisonment. Kelly v. Dowd, 
140 F.2d 81 (7th Cir. 1944). Therefore, plaintiff has 
failed to demonstrate that the defendants, while acting 
under color of state law or in conspiracy with each other, 
deprived or abridged his federally protected rights, priv­
ileges, or immunities as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
and § 1985(2), and hence the complaint should be dis­
missed.

Parenthetically, it is noteworthy that there is a total 
absence of any specific allegation that the defendants 
KERNER, RANDOLPH and FRYE personally partici­
pated either individually or in conspiracy with the others, 
except by the allegation that their respective offices as 
Governor, Director of the Department of Public Safety, 
and Warden gave them the authority and responsibility 
to supervise and correct the alleged wrongful acts of 
their subordinates. Plaintiff is relying upon the doctrine 
of respondeat superior, a doctrine which is totally in­
applicable as a grounds for recovery under the Civil 
Rights Act. Jordon v. Kelly, 233 F. Supp. 731, 739 
(W. D. Mo. 1963) : Rwnnells v. Parker, 263 F. Supp. 
271, 274 (C.D. Cal. 1967).

WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully pray this Hon­
orable Court to strike and dismiss the instant complaint 
and to deny all relief thereunder.

,/s,/ William G. Clark
Attorney General of the 

State of Illinois 
160 No. LaSalle Street 
Chicago, Illinois 60601

John M. Sorrentino 
Assistant Attorney General

Of Counsel



23

No. CV-68-83D 

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f

vs.
Otto J. K e en e r , et  a l ., defen da nts

M otion  to A m e n d  M otion  to D ism iss—
Filed November 8, 1968

Now comes WILLIAM G. CLARK, Attorney General 
of the State of Illinois and Attorney for defendants 
Jeffie Biggs, Paul Sympson, and Russell Lence, to ask 
that the motion to dismiss previously filed be amended 
so that it is also the motion of the defendants Biggs, 
Sympson and Lence. In support of this motion to amend 
the motion to dismiss, the Attorney General says as 
follows:

1) This civil rights action, brought by an inmate of 
the Illinois State Penitentiary to recover some $500,000 
in alleged damages, was filed by leave of court on July 
1, 1968. Thereafter at various times, service was had 
upon various defendants.

2) On July 22, 1968, a motion to dismiss was filed on 
behalf of all defendants except those on whose behalf 
this motion is made. It was only through inadvertence 
that the three defendants above named were not specifi­
cally named in the motion to dismiss, and it was not 
until the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment 
against these three defendants that the mistake was 
discovered. As a matter of fact, the cover letter accom­
panying the motion to dismiss recited that the motion 
was on behalf of “Otto J. Kerner, former Governor of 
Illinois and the other named defendants . . . .”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



24

3) As is more fully set out in the motion to dismiss 
previously filed, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim 
and this action is completely without legal justification.

For these reasons, the defendants Biggs, Sympson and 
Russell Lence ask that an order be entered, amending 
the motion to dismiss to include their names.

/ s /  William G. Clark
Attorney General of the 

State of Illinois 
160 North LaSalle Street 
Suite 900
Chicago, Illinois 60601 
(346-2000)
Attorney for Defendants



25

Cv. No. 68-83-D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f

v.
Otto J . K ern er , et  a l ., d efendants

Order Den y in g  Motion  for  D efau lt  and  A llo w in g  
Motion  to A m en d  M otion  to D ism iss—

Filed November 8, 1968

This matter having come on to be heard on motion of 
the plaintiff for default, and the court being fully ad­
vised in the premises finds that said motion should be 
denied.

Also coming on for hearing is motion to amend pre­
sented by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois 
to include defendants Biggs, Sympson and Lence in the 
motion to dismiss, and the court finds that said motion 
should be allowed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for de­
fault be, and is hereby, denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the mo­
tion to amend motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, al­
lowed.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the 
plaintiff is granted an additional 20 days to file any addi­
tional or supplemental brief to the motion to dismiss, and 
the defendants are to answer said brief within 20 days 
after the filing of any supplemental brief.

Entered this 8th day of November, 1968.

/ s /  Henry S. Wise
United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



26

No. CV 68-83 D 
F ran cis  H a in e s , p l a in t if f  

vs.
Otto J. K e e n e r , et  a l ., defen da nts 

N otice  and  P roof of S ervice

To: Hon. William G. Clark, Attorney General
Supreme Court Building 
Springfield, Illinois

Please take notice that there is being filed in the above 
entitled case Motion for Leave to file Admissions and 
Interrogatories against certain named defendants.

Please take further notice that hereto attached are 
full and complete copies of all papers now being filed.

Please take further notice that this service is being 
made upon you as Counsel for the said Defendants with 
the exceptions of the Defendant Lence.

,/&/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff

State  of I l lin o is  )
) ss.

R a nd olph  County  )
Francis Haines, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes 

and says that he has made service of the papers now 
being filed in this Court upon the Defendants Randolph, 
Frye, Lence, Sheets and Gentsch, along with such serv­
ice upon the Attorney General of Illinois, William G. 
Clark, such done by giving the Prison Officials a copy 
of the papers for delivery to each defendant along with 
a copy of such papers for mailing to William G. Clark at 
his above address, on this 14 day of November, A. D. 
1968,

,/s/ Francis Haines
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, 

on this 14 day of November, A. D. 1968, by Francis 
Haines.

,/s/ Donald G. Gentsch 
Notary Public 
My Commission Expires 

June 21, 1969

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

[SEAL]



27

CV No. 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f  

vs.
Otto J. K ern er , et  a l ., d efendants

M otion  for  Leave to F il e  A d m issio ns  A gainst Cer­
t a in  N amed  D efen d a n ts , P ursuant  to R u le  36, 
F ederal R ules of Civ il  P rocedure—Filed November 
15, 1968

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, respectfully moves that he 
be permitted leave to file, pursuant to Rule 36, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, Admissions to be directed to 
the Defendants, Ross V. Randolph, Max P. Frye, Russell 
Lence, William Sheets, and Donald Gentsch, and that 
this Court may order the same to answer such admis­
sions.

In support of his above motion plaintiff avers that 
such have been made necessary to develop the facts of 
the complaint.

In further support of the above motion plaintiff hereto 
attaches an affidavit.

Respectfully submitted

,/s/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



28

No. CV 68-83 D

F ran cis  H a in e s , p l a in t if f  

vs.
Otto J . K e r n er , et  a l ., defen da nts

M otion  for  Leave to F il e  I nterrogatories A gainst  
Certa in  N amed  D efen d a n ts  P ursuant to R u le  33, 
F ederal R u les  of Civ il  P rocedure—Filed Novem­
ber 15, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, respectfully moves that he 
be permitted leave to file, pursuant to Rule 33, Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, Interrogatories to be directed 
to the Defendants Ross V. Randolph, Max P. Frye, 
Russell Lence, William Sheets, and Donald Gentseh and 
that this Court may order the same to answer such In­
terrogatories.

In support of his above motion plaintiff avers that 
such have been made necessary to develop the facts of 
the complaint.

In further support of the above motion plaintiff hereto 
attaches an affidavit.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Respectfully submitted

/s /  Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



No. CV 68-83 D 
[File Endorsement Omitted]
F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f  

vs.
Otto  J . K er n er , et  a l ., defen da nts 

A ffidavit  in  Su pport  of M otions

State  of I l lin o is  )
) ss.

R a nd olph  County  )

Francis Haines, being first duly sworn upon his oath, 
deposes and says: that he is plaintiff in the above en­
titled cause; that he makes this affidavit in support of 
his motion for leave to file Admissions and Interroga­
tories; that he believes that it is necessary to further 
develop the facts of the case in the light of recent ac­
tions; that on or about October 17, 1968, he went to the 
Inmates Commissary and was permitted to purchase Cos­
metics, such as V. 0. 5 Hair Oil; After Shave Lotion; 
Scented Soap; that he tried to buy Hello or Get Well 
Gretting Cards but was only permitted to buy a Birth­
day Card; that he was permitted to buy Tooth Paste and 
Aspirans; that he needs the rules pertaining to the In­
mates Commissary so that- he may learn the reasoning 
behind the rules which permit him to buy things TO 
MAKE HIM SMELL NICE AND DENY HIM PAPER 
ON WHICH TO PETITION THIS COURT; that he is 
given paper by the Institutional Commercial School be­
cause he is in “C” Grade; this paper is yellow in color; 
that he makes service copies upon used papers for serv­
ice on the defendants.

That on October 24, 1968, while he was having papers 
notarized to be sent to this Court he asked the Defendant 
Gentsch how was it that some inmates did not receive 
a year in “C” Grade; that he was told by the Defendant 
Gentsch that convicts could petition for restoration to 
Grade by petition to the Progressive Merit System Board;

29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



ao

that such is the first time he ever knew of such provision 
and that such is not contained in the Inmates Rule Book; 
that the Progressive Merit System Rules as contained 
in Paragraph 17, Page 6 of the Complaint, under sub­
title “PROMOTIONS” it is said: “in the event of demo­
tion you must spend one year in “C” Grade” ; that this 
Rule and others unknown to Plaintiff are thought to be 
in the large Rule Book in the Institutional Record Office.

That he is now in bad straights in regards to legal 
paper as he has to beg from other inmates enough paper 
to make a copy before he can ask the Commercial School 
and show such copy to get other paper.

That he is contemplating opening a Football Parlay 
Ticket in the Institution to get enough cigarettes to trade 
other inmates for writ papers; that both the trading 
and parlay tickets are in violation of the institution 
rules; that the parlay ticket is in violaton of the Laws 
of Illinois; and if he is caught with parlay tickets it 
might result in another trip to solitary confinement if 
not a trial in a criminal court.

That under General Rule No. 15 in the Institution 
Rule Book an inmate can be punished for giving another 
inmate a piece of candy, and such rule states: “Traf­
ficking, bartering and trading are strictly forbidden.” 
that under this rule he would be forbidden to take paper 
which has been offered by other inmates and would be 
forbidden to “traffic by trading cigarettes for paper; 
that he believes it is now time for this Court to con­
sider the Ancillary Writ of Injunction asked in regards 
to the purchase of paper from sources other than the 
commissary.

That his foregoing statements are true and correct.
/s /  Francis Haines

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, 
by Francis Haines, on this 14 day of November, A. D.
1968.

/ s /  Donald G. Gentsch 
Notary Public 
My Commission Expires 

June 21, 1969[SEAL]



31

No. CV 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J . Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Admissions Under Rule 36, F ederal 
Rules of Civil P rocedure—F iled November 21, 1968
Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 

Ross V. Randolph, within ten days after allowance of 
these Admissions by the Court, to make the following 
Admissions for the purpose of this action only and sub­
ject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which 
may be interposed at the trial.

That you are duly appointed Director of Public Safety 
of the State of Illinois?

That as such Director you are commanded by the 
Laws of Illinois to exercise the powers and discharge 
the duties of such Department?

That you are given Rule making authority for the 
Illinois State Penitentiary System by the provisions of 
Paragraph 10, Chapter 108, Illinois Revised Statutes, 
1967?

That you have exercised such power: to quote the 
Attorney General of Illinois, in his motion to dismiss in 
the above entitled cause as follows:

“Pursuant to its rule making authority (1967 111. 
Rev. Stat. Ch. 108, S. 10) the Department of Public 
Safety has prescribed that all prisoners, shall be di­
vided into three grades (“A”, “B” & “C”.)”

That the provisions of 1967 Illinois Revised Stat­
utes, Ch. 108, pars. 76-81, requires that the Department 
of Public Safety shall classify all prisoners into three 
grades, viz: First, Second and Third Grades?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



32

That there are no provisions contained in the above 
Paragraphs 76-81, concerning disciplinary measures in 
such classifications?

That the classification scheme contained in the above 
paragraph 76-81 are to be based upon ability and will­
ingness to work in general?

That is required by Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, 
Ch. 108, Paragraph 41, that- the Rules and Regulations 
to be read to the Convicts at least once each month?

That the provisions of Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, 
Ch. 108, Paragraph 45, require that the Department 
of Public Safety to make Good Time Rules for the 
diminution of sentences?

That the Progressive Merit System Rules, as con­
tained in Paragraph 17, Page 6, of the Complaint, is a 
correct copy of the Rules as contained in the Current 
Rule Book at Menard Prison?

That there is a Rule within the Progressive Merit 
System which permits convicts to petition for restora­
tion to Grade every three (3) months?

That there is a Rule within the Progressive Merit 
System which states all convicts can be placed in “C” 
Grade?

That there are no provisions within the Progres­
sive Merit System Rules made available to convicts which 
state that a convict in “C” Grade can only buy Cosmetics 
at the Commissary and cannot buy paper on which to 
type a petition to the Courts?

That the provisions of the Illinois Constitution, as 
set forth in Paragraph 8, Page 4, of the Complaint are 
a correct recital of such provisions?

That the Act of 1867, Sessions Laws, Page 31, Illi­
nois Statutes 1868, Section 37, Chapter 81, is cor­
rectly recited in Paragraph 13 (b), Page 5 of the Com­
plaint?

That the act of July 1, 1871, Illinois Revised Stat­
utes, 1925, is correctly quoted in Paragraph 13 (c) 
Page 5 of the Complaint.

That the Plaintiff appeared before the Parole Board 
in 1959, received a continuance to 1964; appeared be­
fore the Parole Board in 1964, received a continuance



S3

to- 1967; appeared in 1967, received a continuance to 
1968; appeared 1968, received a continuance to 1970?

That under none of these above continuances did 
Plaintiff receive the benefits of any good time regula­
tions?

That during the year 1968 Inmate John Baze, 38182, 
was taken before the Circuit Court of Randolph County, 
Illinois, and tried for escaping from the Prison Honor 
Farm?

That the following Rules contained as Commissary 
Rules in the present Institutional Rule Book, Page 26, 
read as follows:

“2) Have your store order filled out properly 
(typed).”
“5) You will file past the Commissary Officer with 
your order in your hand, and after he has placed 
your balance on same, put your prints on the order 
in two places and proceed to secure your order as 
instructed by your officer.”

That the Opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge, concur­
ring in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, at 129, 
states as follows:

“Generally state officials know something of the in­
dividuals basic legal rights. If they do not, they 
should, for they assume that duty when they assume 
their office. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for 
men in general. It is less an excuse for men whose 
special duty is to apply it, and therefore know and 
observe it.”

That the interdictions of Title 42 United States 
Code, Section 1985, prohibit the deprivation of the right 
to the due course of Justice in any state or territory?

That there is in the Menard State Penitentiary a 
place of confinement known by various names, officially 
as Observation and Isolation, and colloquially as “The 
Hole”, “Solitary Confinement” and “Sympsons Hotel” 
and that punishment in such is aptly described in the 
Complaint, Paragraph 19, Page 8?



34

That you, as Director of Public Safety, are con­
sidered the Supreme Administrator of the Illinois Peni­
tentiary System?

That you received the Service Copy of this Request 
for Admissions typed upon used paper?

Respectfully submitted

/s /  Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



35

No. CV68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J. Keener, et al., defendants

Request for I nterrogatories P ursuant to Rule 33, 
F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure—Filed Novem­
ber 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Ross V. Randolph, within ten days after allowance of 
these Interrogatories by the Court, to answer the follow­
ing Interrogatories for the purpose of this action only 
and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility 
which may be interposed at the trial.

That in your enforcing the Progressive Merit Sys­
tem Rules at the penitentiary, why are those prisoners 
serving Definite Sentences being denied any merit time 
when they receive a “non-dated” continuance?

Under what particular provision of Paragraph 10, 
Chapter 108, 111. Rev. Stat. 1967, are you given power 
and authority to classify prisoners into Grades “A”, 
“B”, and “C” when 111. Rev. Stat. 1967, Chapter 108, 
Paragraph 76, states that prisoners shall be classified 
into First, Second and Third Grades?

Under what particular provisions of 111. Rev. Stat. 
1967, are you given the power and authority to use any 
Grade System for discipline when the provisions of 111. 
Rev. Stat. 1967, Ch. 108, Pars. 76-81, contains no such 
provisions?

Under what particular reasoning do you exclude 
plaintiff from receiving merit time solely because he is 
given an undated continuance, when those men receiving 
a dated continuance would be given 1 year, 3 months on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



36

a five year continuance; 9 months on a three year con­
tinuance; three months on a year continuance; and, 6 
months on a two year continuance; a total of 2 years 
and 9 monts, the Table on Page 16 of the Current Rule 
Book states an eleven year continuance would be given 
two years and nine months merit time thereby making 
the prisoner eligible for review of his case in eight years 
and three months?

In excluding definite sentences of life from benefits 
of Good time what consideration have you given the re­
quirements of 111. Rev. Stat. 1967, Ch. 108, Par. 45, 
which provide that Good Time Rules should be made?

Have you, during your tenure as Warden of the 
Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, ever read 
the Rules and Regulations to the convicts as required by 
111. Rev. Stat. 1967, Ch. 108, Par. 41?

Have you, during your tenure as Director of Pub­
lic Safety, of Illinois, required that the present Warden 
of the Illinois State Penitentiary read the Rules and 
Regulations to the convicts?

In Paragraph 17, Page 6, of the Complaint the Pro­
gressive Merit System Rules are copied, under the 
sub-heading “Promotions” and in the second paragraph 
thereof, it is stated: “In the event of demotion you must 
spend one year in “C” Grade * * *” is this emphasized 
word “must” to be taken in the sense of Merriman’s 
Webster Dictionary as meaning mandatory, obligatory 
and required?

In view of the fact that there is nothing contained 
in the current Rule Book in regards to the right of an 
inmate to petition to restoration to Grade, how is it per­
mitted?

Why is such provision for petition for restoration 
to Grade not contaiend in the Rule Book made available 
to convicts?

In the enforcing of Grade “C” with its consequen­
tial loss of Commissary Privileges, why are these con­
victs seeking to petition the Court for redress denied the 
right to purchase paper to write to the Courts?

In the enforcing the loss of Commissary Privileges 
to inmates in Grade “C” what consideration was



37

given to those men’s right of access to the courts, when 
they cannot buy paper?

Do you think it is more important for a man in 
Grade “C” to buy Cosmetics so he can smell nice than 
it is to petition the Courts for redress of grievances?

Have you delegated any authority to the Defend­
ant Sheets to alter, abrogate or annul the existing rules, 
whereby an inmate is not permitted to fill out his order 
as required by Commissary Rule No. 2 and the balance 
is placed upon such order by a convict other than the 
Commissary Officer, as required by Commissary Rule 
No. 5?

Under what authority, delegated or assumed, do you 
have the power to require an inmate in the Illinois 
State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, to buy paper at 
One (1*) Cents per sheet and then furnish a copy of 
any legal papers being sent to the Courts for the Insti­
tutional Piles?

For what reasons are these papers required for the 
Institutional Files used?

Taking into consideration the ruling of the United 
States Supreme Court in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 
that the prison officials in Michigan could not demand 
approval of the Parole Board Attorney before papers 
were sent to the Courts, upon what base do you require 
a copy of papers being sent to the Courts as a condition 
precedent for mailing of such papers to the Courts?

Are you of the opinion that the State of Illinois 
can vest you with the power to ignore the Constitution 
and Laws of the United States?

Taking into consideration that the Illinois Consti­
tution as set forth in the Complaint, Paragraph 8, 
Page 4, which requires and gives, the right to trial by 
jury, an indictment of a grand jury for a criminal of­
fense, the right to appear and defend in person and by 
counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusa­
tion, to have a copy thereof, process to compel the at­
tendance of witnesses, a speedy public trial, and not to 
be compelled to give evidence against himself, were such 
above given any consideration when plaintiff was placed 
in solitary confinement and “C” Grade for actions which 
might constitute a crime under the Laws of the State 
of Illinois?



38

Under what particular Illinois Statute do you pro­
fess to have power to make rules which might deny any 
person of the right to the due course of justice in the 
State of Illinois for offenses committed in the Illinois 
State Penitentiary?

Under what particular Illinois Statute do you pro- 
profess to have power to impose Solitary Confinement as 
punishment for breach of prison rules in view of the 
Act of July 1, 1871, 111. Rev. Stat. 1925, Ch. 108, Par. 
37, prohibited cruel and unusual punishments in the 
Illinois Prisons?

Are you of the opinion that revocation of the above 
law would resinstate the provisions of the 1827 and 1867 
laws which permitted the imposition of Solitary Confine­
ment?

Have you been relying upon custom, usage or prior 
practice in your formulation of prison rules?

Have you given any consideration to the Rule of 
Law as stated in United States v. Jones, 207 F. 2nd. 
785 (CCA 5) that a violation of the Laws of a State 
might constitute a violation of the Federal Civil Rights 
Acts.

Are you of the opinion that your position as a 
state officer would vest in you the power to overthrow 
or ignore the Constitution and Laws of the United States?

Have you delegated any disciplinary powers to the 
Defendant William Sheets, as Commissary Officer in 
the Menard Prison, to remake or ignore the Rules in 
the inmates Rule Book?

Have you authorized the Defendant Sheets to re­
fuse to sell writ paper to inmates in “C” Grade, and to 
limit such inmates to purchase of Cosmetics?

Why has Defendant Sheets been permitted to formu­
late or enforce a rule which prohibits an inmate from 
filling out his Commissary Order as required by Rule 2 
of the Commissary Rules?

Has any consideration been given to a surmise that 
such action might permit inmate commissary clerks 
to add items to the commissary orders after the inmate 
has traded, and therefore take what is known in the in­
stitution as the “Inmates Tax” to cover shortages?



39

Are you aware or were you informed that Prison 
Rumor has the Commissary Five Hundred ($500.00) 
Dollars short at the September audit?

Have you given Defendant Sheets any authority to 
ignore the Commissary Rule No. 5 and permit inmates 
to do his work, including the enforcement of prison rules, 
as set forth in the Complaint, Paragraph 20, Pages 8 
and 9?

Have you given any consideration to the Rule which 
limit paper to he purchased in the commissary for writ­
ing writs to 8y2 x 14 Inch Pink Paper, to be typed with 
Green Ink, to the Rules of Various Courts, and in par­
ticular that of the United States Supreme Court, Rule 
47 (Circa 1954) which requires that typed papers be 
8y2 x 13 Inch Opaque, unglazed paper and the rules of 
the Illinois Supreme Court which require typed papers 
to be on 8y2 x 11 inch white paper?

To what causes do you attribute the discrepancies in 
the cost of Menard Paper in the Commissary, Fletcher 
Manifold, 8% x 14 Inch Paper, at Five ($5.00) Dollars 
per ream, with the price of paper in the Statesville Com­
missary, Hammermill Bond, 8y2 x 13 White Opaque, 
Legal Cap, at about Two ($2.00) Dollars per ream?

To what cause do you attribute the discrepancies in 
the price of Typewriter Ribbons in Menard, from Two 
($2.00) Dollars to Two ($2.25) Dollars, Twenty-five 
Cents, with the cost of Ribbons in Statesville Commis­
sary being about One ($1.00) Dollar?

If the Rules of the Department of Public Safety are 
to be given an uniform application why are Statesville 
Convicts permitted to make applications to the Courts 
on White Paper with Black Ribbons and Menard Con­
victs required to use Pink Paper with Green Ribbons, 
making a much less legible copy?

Do you believe that you, as a Public Officer of the 
State of Illinois, can plead ignorance of the- law in view 
of the statements of Mr. Justice Rutledge in Screws v. 
United States, 325 U.S. 91, 129?

Respectfully yours
/s /  Francis Haines 

Plaintiff



40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

No. CV 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J. Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Admissions P ursuant to Rule 36, F ed­
eral Rules of Civil P rocedure—Filed November 
21, 1968

Plaintiff Francis Haines, requests that Defendant Max 
P. Frye, within ten days after allowance of these ad­
missions by the Court, to make the following admissions 
for the purposes of this action only and subject to all 
pertinent objections as to admissibility which may be 
interposed at the trial.

That you are Warden of the Illinois State Peniten­
tiary, Menard, Illinois.

That you are a Member of the Progressive Merit Sys­
tem Board?

That you were Warden on March 12, 1968?
That on March 12, 1968, the Progressive Merit Sys­

tem Board demoted the plaintiff, Francis Haines, No. 
16348, to “C” Grade, for hitting another inmate on the 
head with a shovel and refusing to explain his actions?

That as Warden you are enforcing a Rule which sets 
a condition precedent on transmission of papers to the 
Courts that the Institution must be given a copy of such 
papers?

That this Service Copy of the Request for Admissions 
and the Service Copy of the Interrogatories were given 
to you upon used papers.

Respectfully submitted

,/s/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



41

No. CV 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J . Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for  Interrogatories P ursuant to Rule 33, 
F ederal Rules of Civil P rocedures—Filed Novem­
ber 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Max P. Frye, within ten days after allowance of these 
interrogatories by the Court, to answer the following In­
terrogatories for the purpose of this action only and 
subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which 
may be interposed at the trial.

In demoting plaintiff to “C” Grade did you consider 
that his actions in hitting another inmate on the head 
with a shovel might have been a “criminal offense” un­
der the Laws of Illinois?

In demoting plaintiff to “C” Grade did you consider 
that his refusal to talk and explain his actions might 
be within his right to remain silent?

In demoting Plaintiff to “C” Grade for his actions did 
you give any consideration to the requirements of the 
Illinois Constitution (1870) Article II, Sections 2; 3; 8; 
9; and 10, in regards to the guarantees therein contained 
for trial of criminal offenses?

In demoting plaintiff to “C” Grade for his actions did 
you give any consideration to the right to the due course 
of justice in the State of Illinois as guaranteed by Title 
42, United States Code, Section 1985?

Why is not the rules which states all convicts may be 
demoted to “C” Grade contained in the Inmates Rule 
Books?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



42

Why is not the rule which provides that inmates in 
“C” Grade may petition for restoration to “A” Grade 
contained in the Inmates Rule Book?

Have you ever, during your tenure as Warden, read 
the Rules and Regulations to the convicts?

Why do the rules now enforced in the Illinois State 
Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, require that a copy of 
all papers being sent to the courts be provided for the 
Institutional files?

Where do you derive the power to impose solitary 
confinement in the Menard Penitentiary?

Where do you derive the power and discretion as to 
whether inmates who commit crimes in the Menard 
Penitentiary are to be tried in the Courts or summary 
punishment in the penitentiary?

Does the Progressive Merit System Board sit en bloc 
or as individuals?

Is a quorum required for action by the Progressive 
Merit System Board?

Whose decision was it to try those prisoners who com­
mitted the killings in the Dining Room and those other 
inmates who have escaped during your tenure of office 
in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Illinois?

Upon what specific reasoning do you proceed in the 
summary trial of criminal offenses and summary punish­
ments?

Have you been given or requested any legal opinions 
of your powers in regards to the imposition of summary 
punishments?

Respectfully submitted

,/s/  Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



43

No. CV 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J . Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Admissions P ursuant to Rule 36, F ederal 
Rules of Civil P rocedure—Filed November 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Russell Lence, within ten days after allowance of these 
Admissions by the Court to make the following Admis­
sions for the purpose of this action only and subject to 
all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be 
interposed at the trial.

That you are Senior Guard Captain at the Illinois 
State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois?

That on March 10, 1968, you were sitting as Disci­
plinary Officer at the penitentiary?

That on March 10, 1968, Plaintiff Francis Haines, ap­
peared before you upon a Disciplinary Report?

That such Disciplinary Report was for hitting an­
other inmate upon the head with a shovel?

That the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Ch. 38, Divi­
sion II, Article 12, Sections 2 to 6, defines the Crime of 
Assault and Battery, and sets the legal penalties there­
fore?

That the Illinois Constitution, 1870, Article II, Sec­
tions 2; 3; 8; 9 and 10 (as contained in the Complaint 
served upon you in Paragraph 8, Page 4), sets forth 
protections to be accorded to persons who are charged 
with criminal offenses?

That the above Constitutional provisions are supple­
mented by the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Criminal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



44

Law and Procedure, Ch. 38, Division III, Titles I to VII, 
pages 1590 to 1613, governing trial in criminal offenses?

That the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Division I, 
Article 25-1, Section 25-1, (3) defines Mob Action and 
states that any assembly of two or more persons trying 
any person without authority of law, is a misdemeanor?

That the Defendant Rogers was present on March 10, 
1968, and participated in the discussions as to the pun­
ishment to be imposed?

That the punishment imposed was fifteen (15) days?
That this punishment is known in the institutional 

vernacular as “The Hole”, “Solitary Confinement” 
“Sympsons Hotel” and the “Stone House” ?

That the punishment is aptly described in the Com­
plaint, Paragraph 19, Page 8?

That a former Director of Public Safety, Mr. Michael 
Seyfrit is quoted in Illinois Criminal Law and Proce­
dure (Stanton 1955) on Paroles, Pardons, Rules and 
Regulations, Chap. 26, Par. 1686, pp. 659-660, as say­
ing (emphasis supplied) :

“* * * minor violations, unless a number, usually 
three or more, occurring within a period of a year 
or less, generally do not call for demotion, solitary 
confinement for varying lengths of time usually be­
ing considered sufficient.”

What changes, to your knowledge, other than the in­
stallation of plumbing, has been made in this area of 
punishment since 1955?

In addition to this imposition of solitary confinement 
plaintiff was also demoted to “C” Grade.

Respectfully submitted

/ s/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



No. CV 68-83 D

45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff 
vs.

Otto J. Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for I nterrogatories Pursuant to Rule 33, 
F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure—Filed Novem­
ber 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Russell Lence, within ten. days after allowance of these 
interrogatories by the Court, to answer the following in­
terrogatories for the purpose of this Action only and 
subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which 
may be interposed at the trial.

From where do you derive your power as Disciplinary 
Officer, while sitting as such, statutes, Institutional Rules 
or Custom and Usage?

On March 10, 1968, did you give any consideration as 
to whether or not the facts contained in the Disciplinary 
Report on the Plaintiff, Francis Haines, might consti­
tute a criminal offense under the Laws of the State of 
Illinois?

Have you any knoweldge of the varying degrees of 
the actions which constitute assault and battery?

On March 10, 1968, did you have any knowledge of 
the guarantees contained in the Illinois Constitution, Ar­
ticle II, Sections 2; 3; 8; 9 and 10; regarding trial of 
criminal offenses in the State of Illinois?

On March 10, 1968, did you have any knowledge of 
the interdiction of the Federal Civil Rights Acts, Title 
42 United States Code, Sections 1981, 1983 and 1985?

On March 10, 1968, did you have any knowledge of 
the provisions of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967,



46

Criminal Law and Procedure, Ch. 38, Division III, Titles 
I to VII, pages 1590 to 1613, which govern trial in crim­
inal offenses in Illinois?

On March 10, 1968, did you have any knowledge of 
the organic law relating to the three preceeding ques­
tions?

If, on March 10, 1968, you had any knowledge of the 
Rule of Law that Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for 
men in general and much less an excuse for state officers, 
would you have proceeded as you did. Such Rule being 
set forth in the opinion in Screws v. United States, 325 
U.S. 91, at 129 (concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Rut­
ledge) as follows?

“Generally state officials know something of the in­
dividuals basic legal rights. If they do not, they 
should, for they assume that duty when they assume 
their office. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for 
men in general. It is less an excuse for men whose 
special duty is to apply it, and therefore know and 
observe it.”

On March 10, 1968, were you aware of the provisions 
of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1985, which pro­
hibits the taking of the due course of justice in any state 
or territory?

If you had such knowledge would you have given con­
sideration to such law?

Have you made any effort to obtain knowledge of pris­
oners basic legal rights, under the State and Federal 
Constitutions and Laws?

Did the plaintiffs refusal to explain his actions, to you 
have any bearing upon the amount of punishment im­
posed?

Respectfully submitted

,/s/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



47

No. CV 68-83 D 

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff

vs.
Otto J . Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Admissions P ursuant to Rule 36, F ed­
eral Rules of Civil Procedure—Filed November 
21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
William Sheets, within ten days after allowance of these 
admissions by the Court to make the following admis­
sions for the purpose of this action only subject to all 
pertinent objections of admissibility which may be inter­
posed at the trial.

That you are Commissary Officer at the Illinois State 
Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois.

That on March 27, 1968, Inmate Rond, Register Num­
ber 32163, was assigned to work under your supervision 
at the Inmates Commissary.

That the duties of Inmate Bond included the placing 
of Inmates balance upon their Commissary Slips.

That Commissary Slips by Inmates are required to be 
turned in with only the heading thereof typed and the 
item list vacant.

That Commissary Rule No. 2 in the Current Inmate 
Rule Book reads as follows:

“Have your order filled out properly (typed)”
That Commissary Rule No. 5 in the Current Inmate 

Rule Book reads as follows:
“You will file past the Commissary Officer with your 
order in your hand, and after he has placed your

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



48

balance on same, put your prints on the order in 
two places, and proceed to secure your order as in­
structed by your officer.”

That Fletcher Manifold Paper, sixe 8y2 x 14 inch, 
Pink in Color, is sold at the price of one (1$) cent per 
sheet.

That the price of M & M Carbon Paper is ten (100) 
cents per sheet in the Commissary.

That the price of typewriter Ribbons, Green in Color, 
when first placed in the Commissary in the Fall of 1964 
were One ($1.50) Dollar, Fifty Cents.

That in the year of 1967 the Plaintiff purchased at 
least three typewriter ribbons, paying varying prices for 
the same, from Two and a Half ($2.50) Dollars to Two 
($2.00) Dollars.

That inmates in “C” Grade are permitted to purchase 
only Cosmetics under the Rules enforced by you.

That when an inmate has the rush placed upon him in 
the Commissary before he can check his order he has 
no recourse to recover any shortages.

That you have no Price List posted in any conspicious 
place where it can be read in the Commissary and no 
price list is currently available in the institution.

Respectfully submitted

,/s/  Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



No. CV 68-83 D 
[File Endorsement Omitted]
F rancis Haines, plaintiff 

vs.
Otto J. Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Interrogatories Pursuant to Rule 33, 
F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure—Filed Novem­
ber 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
William Sheets, within ten days after allowance of these 
interrogatories by the Court, to answer the following in­
terrogatories for the purpose of this action only and sub­
ject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which 
may be interposed at the trial.

Have you been vested with any power, discretion of 
authority to alter, amend or ignore the Commissary 
Rules as contained in the current Inmate Rule Book in 
the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois?

In the event you have not been vested with any power, 
discretion or authority to alter, amend or ignore the 
Commissary Rules in the Rule Book why are not inmates 
permitted to have their store orders typed as required 
in Commissary Rule No. 2; and only the Inmate Clerks 
permitted to list the items purchased?

Why are not these Inmate Clerks required to Red Line 
Commissary Orders?

Do you receive any complaints from the inmates in 
the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, Illinois, that ad­
ditional items are placed on their Commissary Lists after 
they have left the commissary?

Is any Audit- or Check of any kind made upon Com­
missary Orders after an Inmate has traded?

How long is it since you personally put an inmates 
Balance on his Commissary Order as required by Com­
missary Rule No. 5?

49
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



50

What is the price you pay for Fletcher Manifold per
ream?

What considerations prompted the selling nothing but 
Pink Paper to write papers to the Courts?

If the consideration that too much state paper was 
being stolen for use by inmates did you or the person 
ordering Pink Paper give any consideration to the fact 
that paper with Watermarks could have been purchased 
for sale in the Commissary?

May it be correctly stated that until about 1964 that 
this Pink Paper was sold by the Ream at a price of 
Four ($4.00) Dollars per ream in the commissary?

That while this Pink Paper was being sold for the 
above sum it was priced in less than Ream Lots at one 
(1<U cents per sheet, because of the time and bother to 
count it out?

What is your cost of the Green Typewriter Ribbons 
sold at the Commissary?

Why are inmates compelled to take what an inmate 
clerk brings not rather than a ribbon which fits his 
machine?

Are you aware of the use of the term “Inmate Tax” 
as used in the institution in relation to the Commissary?

Are you aware of the Prison Rumor that the Inmates 
Commissary Books was Five ($500.00) Dollars short at 
the September Inventory?

Was it because of this shortage in the inventory that 
the prices of Hair Oil and Coffee were raised?

Is the Federal Excise Tax still in existence on the sale 
of V. O. 5 Hair Oil?

If such Federal Excise Tax is still in existence are you 
paying tax on the selling price over the advertised price 
of $1.10?

Are you aware that the Federal Criminal Code, Title 
18, United States Code, Section 3, requires as follows:

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the 
United States has been committed, receives, relieves, 
comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder 
or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is 
an accessory after the fact.”



51

Are you aware that the Federal Criminal Code, Title 
18, United States Code, Section 4, provides:

“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commis­
sion of a felony cognizable by a court of the United 
States, conceals and does not as soon as possible 
make known the same to some judge or other person 
in civil or military authority under the United 
States, shall be fined not more than $500 or impris­
oned not more than three years.”

Are you aware of the rulings of the United States 
Supreme Court in Re Quarles, 158 U.S. 352; and Motes 
v. United States, 178 U.S. 458; that every person has 
the right to inform the United States of the violations 
of its laws?

What objections could you have to the plaintiff inform­
ing the United States authorities of the violation of their 
laws if you are not paying the additional excise tax upon 
the added price of V. 0. 5 Hair Oil?

Within the months of August, September and October, 
1968, has any inmate assigned to the Inmates Commis­
sary been transferred for giving Commissary Articles 
to a pervert?

Have you ever considered that the refusal of the Com­
missary to sell the Plaintiff paper on March 27, 1968, 
might be a violation of his right to access to the Courts?

Did Inmate Bond properly heed your Orders and In­
structions on March 27, 1968, when he told the Plaintiff 
that he could take the matter to court, if he, plaintiff, 
did not like it?

Under what line of reasoning do you operate when 
you fail and/or refuse to sell paper which compares to 
the requirements and rules of the various courts?

Are you aware that the Rules of the United States 
Supreme Court Rule 47 (Circa 1954) requires opaque, 
unglazed paper, 8y2 x 13 inches in size (Legal Cap.)?

Is there any full, complete and entire copy of all Com­
missary Rules in existence?

Respectfully submitted
/&/ Francis Haines 

Plaintiff



52

No. CV 68-83 D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff

vs.
Otto J. Keener, et al., defendants

Request for Admissions P ursuant to Rule 36, F ed­
eral Rules of Civil P rocedure—Filed November 
21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Donald Gentseh, within ten days after allowance of these 
admissions by the Court to make the following admis­
sions for the purposes of this action only and subject to 
all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be 
interposed at the trial.

That you are Record Clerk at the Illinois State Peni­
tentiary, Menard, Illinois?

That you are a Member of the Progressive Merit Sys­
tem Board at the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, 
Illinois?

That as such Record Clerk you prepare what is known 
as the Parole Board. Dockets for each month?

That there is an Institutional Rule Book in Your Of­
fice, approximately in size as follows: Contained in a 
Ledger Binder, 8y2 x 14 inches, about 5 inches thick of 
typed papers?

That on or about April 2, 1968, you opened this Ledger 
Book to show plaintiff a rule which stated that all con­
victs could be placed in “C” Grade, in answer to plain­
tiff’s letter to Defendant Lewis C. Lence complaining 
about being placed in “C” Grade?

That plaintiff told you that when he was given Good 
Time for the twenty-nine (29) years he had served he 
would accept “C” Grade with good graces?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



53

That plaintiff told you he should be classified into 
either First, Second or Third Grade according to the 
Illinois Laws?

That in answer to the above statement you produced 
a Volume of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, which 
contained Chapter 108 of such laws, and turned to Para­
graphs 76-81 and plaintiff pointed out to you wherein 
it spoke of First Grade and you then closed the book.

That on or about October 24, 1968, when plaintiff was 
having legal papers notarized he asked of you how some 
cinviets spent only three months in “C” Grade and you 
informed him that convicts had the right to petition for 
restoration of grade every three months?

That neither of these above provisions: all convicts 
can be placed in “C” Grade and all convicts can petition 
for restoration to the prior grade are contained in the 
Inmates Rule Book.

That you are the Notary Public who notarized papers 
being sent to the Courts.

That it is a condition precedent for mailing legal 
papers to the Courts that the Institutional Files must be 
furnished with a copy of all such papers.

That in the current Inmates Rule Book, page 16, there 
is contained therein a merit time table which states, in 
part, as follows.

“MERIT TIME EARNED ON A SET.
“Continuance in
years from date of “Merit Time
arrest of date of earned in years, “Case reviewed
sentence months. in years, months.

yrs. Mo days yrs mo days
20 5 0 0 15 0 0
11 2 9 0 8 3 0
That plaintiff was received in the Illinois State Peni­

tentiary, Joliet, Illinois, on July 12, 1939.
That plaintiff appeared before the Parole Board at 

Menard, Penitentiary and received a continuance until 
July 1970.

That taking from his entrance in 1939 until 1970 
plaintiff has received thirty-one (31) years of continu­
ances.



54

That taking the above table extracts as a guide plain­
tiff can be said to- be entitled to seven (7) years and 
nine (9) months Merit Time, less time lost, and there­
fore can be said to only have to serve twenty-three (23) 
YEARS AND THREE (3) months to have his ease re­
viewed by the Parole Board.

That since plaintiff has now served twenty-nine (29) 
years and four (4) months, which is six (6) years and 
one (1) month over the required twenty-three (23) years 
and three (3) months set forth in the table in the In­
mates Rule Book.

That you exclude prisoners receiving an undated con­
tinuance from the benefits of the Merit Time Tables.

That prisoners serving definite sentences receive un­
dated continuances.

That you received the Service Copy of these admissions 
and interrogatories typed upon used papers.

Respectfully submitted

/ s /  Francis Haines 
Plaintiff



55

No. CV 68-83 D 
[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff

vs.
Otto J. Kerner, et al., defendants

Request for Interrogatories P ursuant to Rule 33, 
F ederal Rules of Civil P rocedure—Filed Novem­
ber 21, 1968

Plaintiff, Francis Haines, requests that Defendant 
Donald Gentsch, within ten days after allowance of these 
interrogatories by the Court, to answer the following 
interrogatories for the purpose of this action only and 
subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which 
may be interposed at the trial.

As Record Clerk at Menard Prison, do you maintain 
or possess any copy of the Daily Journal required to be 
kept by the Department of Public Safety by Illinois Re­
vised Statutes, 1967, Ch. 108, Par. 17?

In what manner does the Progressive Merit System 
Board act in demoting convicts, en bloc or as individuals?

During your tenure as a member of the Progressive 
Merit System Board has any convict ever been given the 
opportunity to be heard in defense of the charges?

Does the Ledger Book which was used to show plaintiff 
that all prisoners could be placed in “C” Grade contain 
all the institutional rules?

That the placing of an inmate in “C” Grade is a disci­
plinary action?

Do you know of, as Record Clerk, of any classification 
of the convicts pursuant to the requirements of Illinois 
Revised Statutes, 1967, Ch. 108, Pars. 76-81?

Do you know of any interpretation of Illinois Revised 
Statutes, 1967, Ch. 108, Pars. 76-81, which construes it 
so as to permit disciplinary action to be taken there­

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



56

under, either by the Courts, the Attorney General or the 
prison administration?

Who wrote up the plaintiff for consideration by the 
Progressive Merit System Board for demotion?

Is there a copy of such report for demotion contained 
in the Daily Journal of the Institution Files?

Where is the rule pertaining to the right of an inmate 
to petition for restoration to Grade contained?

How many other Progressive Merit System Rules, 
other than the two herein spoken of, are in existence 
and not contained in the Inmates Rule Book?

If such above rules exist, where are they contained?
Where is the rule which requires a copy of all papers 

being sent to the Courts be furnished for the Institu­
tional Files contained?

What becomes of such copies furnished to the Institu­
tional files, is information concerning them given either 
to Law Enforcing Officials, Courts or the Parole Board?

Are convicts serving Definte Sentences for the crime 
of Burglary, other than those convicted as Habitual 
Criminals, given Good Time as provided by law, for 
diminution of their maximum term?

Is there any Order in the Institution Files, similar 
to the below quoted Bulletin?

“November 18, 1955

Bulletin No. 246.

“Quoted below is a copy of the Order received from 
the Parole and Pardon Board dated November 9th.
“Commencing with the December 1955, parole docket 
and all future dockets, inmates whose names appear 
thereon who are out of grade, or in solitary confine­
ment, shall not appear before members of the Board 
for hearing.
“Their cases shall be continued until such time as 
they have made grade or have been released from 
solitary confinement.

(Signed) J. E. Ragen 
Warden”



57

The above being listed as Bulletin No. 246, dated No­
vember 9th, 1955, at Statesville Branch?

Are you aware of the Opinion of the Attorney Gen­
eral of Illinois, No. 298, p. 77, 1944 (dated April 19, 
1944, therein is said in the final Paragraph thereof, 
that:

“Paragraph 807, Chapter 38, Illinois Revised Stat­
utes, 1943, supra, explicitly provides for the dis­
charge of a prisoner at the expiration of the maxi­
mum term provided by law for the offense for which 
a prisoner is committed, making allowance for good 
time as provided by law.”

In view of the statement of the Attorney General that 
allowance must be made for Good Time upon the Maxi­
mum Sentence how is such Good Time computed in rela­
tion to the Plaintiff’s Sentence?

Has the Progressive Merit System Board made any 
Rules and Regulations concerning what items an inmate 
in “C” Grade may purchase in the Commissary?

If so, has the Defendant Sheets been given any au­
thority to alter, amend or modify the same?

If the Progressive Merit System Board has made any 
rules or regulations concerning Commissary purchases 
by inmates in “C” Grade where and how can such be 
learned?

Respectfully submitted 
/ s /  Francis Haines 

Plaintiff



58

Cv. 68-83-D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f

v.
Otto  J. K e r n er , Former Governor, State of Illinois, Chi­

cago, Illinois ; Ross V. R a n d o lph , Director of Public 
Safety, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois; M ax P. 
F rye , Warden; Le w is  C. L e n c e , Assistant Warden; 
P aul  V. Sy m pso n , Senior Guard Captain; R ussell  
Le n c e , Guard Captain; E. Rogers, Guard Lieuten­
ant; D onald  Ge n t s c h , Record Clerk; W illia m  
Sh e e t s , Commissary Officer; P a ul  T. D u n c a n , 
Guard, all of the Illinois State Penitentiary, Menard, 
Illinois 62259, d efen d a n ts

Order D ism issin g  Co m pl a in t—
Entered December 19, 1968

Motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint 
filed by the plaintiff having come on for hearing, briefs 
having been filed, and the court being fully advised in 
the premises finds that this is a civil rights action for 
damages in the amount of $250,000.00 for depriviation 
of plaintiff’s rights by means of conspiracy by the de­
fendants,

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff an inmate of 
the Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard, Illinois, hit 
another inmate with a shovel. The plaintiff alleges that 
he would not reveal to the officers the reason for his 
action and disciplinary measures were taken by the 
prison authorities and the plaintiff was demoted to Grade 
“C” and a demotion to this grade causes the inmate to 
lose certain privileges. The plaintiff alleges that he does 
not come under the grade system inasmuch as he received 
a life sentence. Illinois Revised Statutes, Ch. 108, § 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS



59

provides for the “Powers and duties of Department of 
Public Safety” and reads in part as follows:

“The Department shall make and enforce all such 
general rules, regulations and orders for the govern­
ment and discipline of the penitentiary as it may 
deem expedient . . .

In accordance with this authority the Parole and Pardon 
Board enacted certain rules and regulations. Rule 1 pro­
vides in part as follows:

“ (C) Every person sentenced to the penitentiary 
regardless of when sentenced, and regardless of the 
length of sentence shall be eligible for parole at the 
end of 20 years unless his or her minimum sen­
tence, less “Good Time” is less than 20 years.

“In each case ‘Good Time’ shall be deducted as 
prescribed by the rule of the Department of Public 
Safety providing for the diminution of sentences as 
required by statute, hereinafter referred to as ‘Good 
Time’, as distinguished from ‘Merit Time’.”

Illinois Revised Statutes, Ch. 108, § 45 provides as fol­
lows:

“The Department of Public Safety is authorized 
and directed to prescribe reasonable rules and regu­
lations for the diminution of sentences on account 
of good conduct, of persons heretofore and hereafter 
convicted of crime, who are confined in the State 
penal and reformatory institutions.”

Except under exceptional circumstances, internal matters 
in state penitentiaries are sole concern of states and 
federal courts will not inquire concerning them. U.S. ex 
rel. Lee v. People of State of Illinois, C.A. 111., 1965, 
343 F. 2d 120; U.S. ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, C.A. Ill, 
1964, 337 F. 2d 425, certiorari denied 380 U.S. 985. This 
plaintiff has failed to show that the defendants, while 
acting under color of state law or in conspiracy with 
each other, deprived or abridged his federally protected 
rights, privileges, or immunities as required by 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983 and § 1985(2). The defendants were merely car-



60

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to 
dismiss be, and is hereby, allowed, and the cause of ac­
tion is dismissed.

Entered this 19th day of December, 1968.

/ s /  Henry S. Wise
United States District Judge

rying out the rules and regulations of the institution as
provided by law.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Cv. 68-83-D
[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis H a in e s , p l a in t if f

v.
Otto  J. K ern er , et  a l ., defen da nts

Order D en y in g  M otion  for  R ehea rin g—  
Entered January 8, 1969

Motion of plaintiff to reconsider and set aside order 
dismissing complaint entered December 20, 1968, having 
come on for hearing, and the court being fully advised 
in the premises finds its order of December 20, 1968 
covers the issues involved and no change will be made 
as to said order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for 
reconsideration and setting aside of order dismissing 
complaint entered by this court on December 20, 1968 
be, and is hereby, denied.

Entered this 8th day of January, 1969.
/ s /  Henry S. Wise

United States District Judge



CV 68-83-D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff

61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

v.

Otto J. Keener, et al., defendants

Motion for Leave to F ile and P rosecute Appeal in 
F orma Pauperis, P ursant to Title 28 United 
States Code, Section 1915 (a) and Rule 75 (m) 
F ederal Rules of Civil P rocedure— F iled January  
31, 1969

Francis Haines, plaintiff in the above entitled cause, 
moves the Court that he be permitted leave to prosecute 
his appeal in Forma Pauperis as provided in Title 28, 
United States Code, Section 1915 (a) and Rule 75 (m), 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, construed in Adkins v. 
Dupont, 335 U. S. 331.

In support of his above action plaintiff avers that he 
presents his motion pursuant to the teachings of Adkins 
v. Dupont, 335 U. S. 331, at 337, construing Rule 75 
(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In further support of his motion plaintiff avers that 
he will present typewritten Transcripts of the Record to 
the United States Court of Appeals.

In further support of his motion plaintiff avers that 
he will pay the filing fee in the Court of Appeals, which 
he understands to be Twenty-five ($25,00) Dollars.

In further support of his motion the plaintiff avers 
that he included in his Motion of Appeal the specific 
questions upon which he desires to appeal.

In further support of his above motion plaintiff avers 
that he is sending to borrow the money to pay the filing 
fee in the Court of Appeals.



62

/s,/ Francis Haines
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se 
Reg. No. 16348 
Box 711
Menard, 111. 62259

Plaintiff hereto' attaches his Affidavit of Fom a Pau­
peris, made Pursuant to Adkins v. Dupont, 335 U. S. 331.

Respectfully submitted

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CV 68-83-D

[File Endorsement Omitted]

F rancis Haines, plaintiff

v.
Otto J. Kerner, et al., dependants

Notice of Appeal—Filed February 13, 1969

To : Attorney General of Illinois
160 No. LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111. 60601

You will please take notice that the Plaintiff herein, 
Francis Haines, has filed in the Office of the Clerk of 
the United States District Court, Eastern District of 
Illinois, his notice of appeal by him, from the Judgments 
entered in the case, wherein the judgment of the said 
Court was that the actions complained of were taken 
under and warranted by law, and ordered that the said



63

Complaint be dismissed upon the Motion to Dismiss by 
the Attorney General of Illinois.

That, therefore, Plaintiff herein notifies the Defend­
ants that he has filed his Notice of Appeal to the Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

From the entire judgment of the District Court afore­
said and his grounds for said appeal, the errors relied 
upon are:

1. That the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Illinois, erred in deciding grave constitutional 
matters upon a Motion to Dismiss and without hearing 
the facts and the law.

2. That the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Illinois, erred in holding that the Complaint 
failed to state a valid cause of action under the Federal 
Civil Rights Acts.

3. That the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Illinois, erred in failing and refusing to fol­
low the teachings of the United States Supreme Court 
in Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 104, that the 
statutory protection of the Federal Civil Rights Acts, 
extends to every right “which has been made specific by 
the express terms of the Constitution and Laws of the 
United States or by decisions interpreting them.”

4. That the United States District Court, Eastern 
District of Illinois, erred in failing and refusing to fol­
low the teachings of the United States Supreme Court 
in Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 666, and Mr. 
Justice Douglas in concurring at 370 U. S. 675, that the 
Eighth Amendment was applicable to the States, as said 
in Wright v. McMann, 387 F. 2d 519, 522, and Jackson 
et al. v. Bishop (8 Cir. December 9, 1968), slip opinion 
page 11, Nos. 18957-59.

5. That the United States District Court, Eastern 
District of Illinois, erred in failing and refusing to fol­
low the teachings of the United States Supreme Court 
in Cooper v. Pate, 378 U. S. 546, that upon a Motion 
to Dismiss the Court must accept all facts as true, and 
as set forth and done in Picking v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 
151 F. 2d 240, 246, cert, denied 332 U. S, 766; Wright 
v. McMann, 387 F. 2d. 519-522.



64

6. That the United States District Court, Eastern 
District of Illinois, Honorable Henry S. Wise, Judge 
Presiding, has sat in review of prison rules and regula­
tions which he had approved as a Member of the Illinois 
Parole Board on May 8, 1962, and contained in a Rule 
Book entitled “Rules and Statutes relating to Parole and 
Pardons”, as distributed in the Illinois State Peniten­
tiary System.

7. That the United States District Court, Eastern 
District of Illinois, erred in failing and refusing to con­
sider the language of Illinois Statutes of 1868, Ch. 81, 
Par. 37, which define “solitary confinement” as unusual 
confinement and therefore within the proscription of the 
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution 
of the United States.

,/s/ Francis Haines 
Plaintiff, Pro Se 
Reg. No. 16348 
Box 711
Menard, 111. 62259

[Certificate of Service (Omitted in Printing)]



65

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

September Term, 1969—April Session, 1970

No. 17511

F rancis Haines, plaintiff-appellant 
v.

Otto J . Kerner, Former Governor, State of Illinois, Chi­
cago, Illinois; Ross V. Randolph, Director of Public 
Safety, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois; Max P. 
F rye, Warden; Lewis C. Lence, Assistant Warden; 
J effie  Biggs, Assistant Warden; P aul V. Sympson, 
Senior Guard Captain; Russell Lence, Guard Cap­
tain; E. Rogers, Guard Lieutenant; Donald Gentsch, 
Record Clerk; W illiam Sheets, Commissary Officer; 
P aul T. Duncan, Guard, all of the Illinois State Pen­
itentiary, Menard, Illinois 62259, defendants-appel- 
LEES
Appeal F rom the  U nited States D istrict Court 

for the E astern District of Illinois

Opinion—May 25, 1970

Before E noch, Senior Circuit Judge, F airchild, Cir­
cuit Judge, and Grant, District Judge.*

E noch, Senior Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Fran­
cis Haines, brought suit in the United States District 
Court, pursuant to the Civil Rights statutes, Title 28 
U.S.C. § 1343(3) and Title 42 U.S.C. §1981, in forma 
pauperis, to recover a total of $500,000 as damages for 
deprivation of his rights, under Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 
1983 and 1985(2).

* Judge Grant from the Northern District of Indiana is sitting by 
designation.



66

Plaintiff’s Complaint states that he is confined in the 
Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard, Illinois. He de­
scribes the defendants, as officers and employees of the 
State of Illinois and as conspiring among themselves and 
with others, directly or through agents, to deny Plaintiff 
his Constitutional rights, principally, to be free of cruel 
and unusual punishments and not to be deprived of 
liberty or property without due process of law.

As Plaintiff, in his brief, describes the incident out 
of which this action arose, he was engaged in an argu­
ment with two other inmates in the course of which he 
struck one with a shovel. He states that he refused to 
explain his action or to discuss the incident with the 
investigating prison authorities, as a result of which he 
was placed in solitary confinement for a period of fifteen 
days. Plaintiff says he is 66 years of age and has a foot 
disability discernable by X-ray for which he was award­
ed compensation in a hearing before the Illinois Indus­
trial Commission. He found solitary confinement with 
its attendant rigorous conditions particularly onerous, 
and he considers it to be cruel and unusual punishment 
improperly imposed without a court trial. He was also 
classified as “C” under the Progressive Merit System, 
which he explains in his Complaint indicated unsatisfac­
tory behavior and entailed a loss of privileges such as 
commissary rights and the right to earn “merit time.”

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for 
failure to state a cause of action on which relief might 
be granted. The District Judge granted this motion and 
appeal followed.

State prison officials are vested with wide discretion, 
and discipline reasonably maintained in state prisons is 
not subject to our supervisory direction.

Apart from purely conclusory statements, the allega­
tions of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not- show that the De­
fendants acting under color of state law or in conspiracy 
abridged his Constitutional rights, privileges or immuni­
ties within the scope of the Civil Rights statutes on which 
he relies. Cf Henderson v. Pate, 7 Cir., 1969, 409 F, 2d 
507, 508, cert. den. 396 U.S. 914.

The decision of the District Judge is affirmed.
Affirmed.



67

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Before Hon. W in  G. E noch, Senior Circuit Judge 
Hon. Thomas E. F airchild, Circuit Judge 
Hon. Robert A. Grant, District Judge

No. 17511

F rancis Haines, plaintiff-appellant

vs.
Otto J. Kerner, Former Governor, State of Illinois, 

etc., et al., defendants-appellees

Appeal F rom the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Illinois

J udgment—May 25, 1970

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of 
the record from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Illinois, and was submitted to the 
Court without oral argument.

On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged 
by this court that the judgment of the said District 
Court in this cause appealed from be, and the same is 
hereby, AFFIRMED, in accordance with the opinion of 
this Court filed this day.



68

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Before Hon. W in  G. E noch, Sr. Circuit Judge
Hon. Thomas E. F airchild, Circuit Judge 
Hon. Robert A. Grant, District Judge

No. 17511

F rancis Haines, plaintiff-appellant 
vs.

Otto J. Kerner, Former Governor, State of Illinois, 
ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

Appeal F rom the  United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of Illinois

Order Denying Rehearing—June 19, 1970

On consderation of the petition for rehearing and sug­
gestion that it be heard en banc filed in the above-en­
titled cause, no judge in active service having requested 
a vote thereon, nor any judge voted to grant the sugges­
tion, and all members of the panel having voted to deny 
a rehearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a rehearing in 
the above-entitled cause be and the same is hereby denied.



69

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
No. 5940, October Term, 1970

F rancis Haines, petitioner 
v.

Otto J. Kerner, Former Governor,
State of Illinois, et al.

On petition for writ of Certiorari to the United States 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On consideration of the motion for leave to proceed 
herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for writ 
of certiorari, it is orderd by this Court that the motion 
to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same is hereby, 
granted; and that the petition for writ of certiorari be, 
and the same is hereby, granted.

March 8, 1971

• f r  U.  S .  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1 9 7 1 4 2 5 9 2 2  6 6 7

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top