University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Wilson v. Kelley PC-GA-0004
Docket / Court 11647 ( N.D. Ga. )
State/Territory Georgia
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
Plaintiffs, black and white current, former, and prospective inmates in Georgia penal institutions, brought a civil rights law suit through counsel affiliated in various ways with the ACLU in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against all the state's prison and jail ... read more >
Plaintiffs, black and white current, former, and prospective inmates in Georgia penal institutions, brought a civil rights law suit through counsel affiliated in various ways with the ACLU in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against all the state's prison and jail officials alleging violations of their Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the complaint sought (1) to abolish racial segregation in all jails and penal institutions in Georgia; (2) to prevent the alleged discrimination in the employment of blacks at penal institutions and as sheriffs in Georgia; and (3) to abolish all county public works camps in Georgia. A three-judge district court panel awarded relief to desegregate the penal facilities, but denied the remaining relief sought. Wilson v. Kelley, 294 F.Supp 1005 (N.D. Ga. 1968) (Judge Sidney O. Smith).

Georgia law segregated inmates on the basis of race. Inmates not in the state system were segregated as a matter of custom. In light of a recent Supreme Court decision, the district court held that this type of racial segregation, and therefore the statutes, violated the Fourteenth Amendment and ordered the complete integration of all city and county jails, county public works camps, state correctional institutions and juvenile facilities within six months, on or before January 1, 1969. The court said that prison officials could take racial tensions into account concerning security and discipline, but that they could only do so when acting in good faith in response to some actual evidence.

The district court panel refused to grant relief on the other two requests. First, despite evidence that the majority of inmates were black and that the overwhelming majority of corrections jobs were filled by whites, the court dismissed plaintiffs' second claim reasoning that there was not a proper class of plaintiffs nor a proper defendant class representative in the case. Specifically, none of the members of the plaintiff class had ever applied for work in a correctional facility and they failed to show that a member of the defendant class could grant the relief requested. In a separate opinion, another judge dissented, arguing that plaintiffs were a proper class because they were affected by the hiring practices. (Judge Tuttle, concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The court also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the work camps constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment because they offered only physical labor and not academic and trade programs like other facilities. The court reasoned that plaintiffs were not a representative class, as some prisoners at the work camp might prefer that assignment, and that there was not a clear abuse of discretion that would warrant disregarding the longstanding policy of courts to not interfere in prison administration and discipline.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in a per curiam judgment without opinion. Wilson v. Kelley, 393 U.S. 266 (1968).

Although the docket for this case is not available on PACER, activity continued after the Supreme Court decision. According to an August 11, 1975 memo to the Federal Bureau of Investigations from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the United States became a party intervenor in the case in 1973 for purposes of enforcement. Since that time, the memo states that United States had brought enforcement actions against five Georgia counties and that private plaintiffs had also brought enforcement actions. The memo requested the assistance of the FBI to determine if jails not yet investigated were in compliance with the 1968 court order. One such investigation, concluded with an FBI report dated September 14, 1976, revealed that one facility became integrated as a result of the Justice Departments' out of court efforts.

Sherrie Waldrup - 03/06/2006


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Georgia Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs, black and white current, former, and prospective inmates in Georgia penal institutions
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Order of Dismissal 06/27/1968 (294 F.Supp. 1005) (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0004-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum Decision 12/16/1968 (393 U.S. 266)
PC-GA-0004-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Memorandum Requesting FBI Inspection 08/11/1975
PC-GA-0004-0003.pdf | Detail
Notice to Close File 09/23/1976
PC-GA-0004-0004.pdf | Detail
Judges Douglas, William Orville (SCOTUS)
PC-GA-0004-0006
Hooper, Frank Arthur (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Smith, Sidney Oslin Jr. (N.D. Ga.)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Tuttle, Elbert Parr (Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit)
PC-GA-0004-0005
White, Byron Raymond (SCOTUS)
PC-GA-0004-0006
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Boult, Reber F. Jr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Brent, John Wm. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Garbus, Martin (New York)
PC-GA-0004-0006
Jones, P. Walter (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
King, C. B. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Kinoy, Arthur (New York)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Moore, Howard Jr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Morgan, Charles Jr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Rindskopf, Peter E. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Wulf, Melvin L. (New York)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Defendant's Lawyers Bolton, Arthur K. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Bryan, W. Wheeler (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Evans, Alfred L. Jr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Ferguson, John T. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Gordon, Marion O. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Hartman, Don L. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Hill, Harold N. Jr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Hinchey, John W. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Robins, Mathew (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005 | PC-GA-0004-0006
Sheats, Harold (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Twitty, Frank S. Sr. (Georgia)
PC-GA-0004-0005
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -