Case: Haynes v. State of Ohio

2:72-cv-00223 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: June 27, 1972

Closed Date: 1985

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 13,1978 two inmates at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Ohio Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by the prison's regulations restricting the prisoners' use of white prayer robes to the prison chapel. On April 6, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Judge Carl Rubin) granted su…

On June 13,1978 two inmates at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Ohio Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional rights had been violated by the prison's regulations restricting the prisoners' use of white prayer robes to the prison chapel.

On April 6, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Judge Carl Rubin) granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the regulation in question was a permissible exercise of the discretion granted to prison officials to administer penal institutions and that their actions did not violate the inmates' constitutional rights. The plaintiffs appealed.

On July 30, 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judge Albert Engel, Judge Boyce Martin, and Judge Thomas Wiseman) affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the prison regulation did not violate the First Amendment rights of the inmates, and that the consent decree entered in another case ordering the State of Ohio to allow incarcerated Muslims to practice their religion was not violated by the regulation.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (8/19/2007)

People


Judge(s)

Engel, Albert Joseph (Michigan)

Kinneary, Joseph Peter (Ohio)

Martin, Boyce Ficklen Jr. (Kentucky)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Anninos, A.P. (Ohio)

Attorney for Defendant

Pertz, Frank F. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Engel, Albert Joseph (Michigan)

Kinneary, Joseph Peter (Ohio)

Martin, Boyce Ficklen Jr. (Kentucky)

Wiseman, Thomas Anderton Jr. (Tennessee)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:72-cv-00223

Docket (PACER)

Haynes v. Haskins

Aug. 19, 1992

Aug. 19, 1992

Docket

83-03326

Reported Opinion

Abdullah v. Kinnison

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

July 30, 1985

July 30, 1985

Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated Jan. 13, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

Remark: this case is closed with motions pending - please refer to hard docket for a complete docket (ns) (Entered: 07/11/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

46

MOTION by plaintiff James Ronald Haynes for enforcement or contemp and or issuance of an order in the form of mandamus ( no pgs: ) (ns) (Entered: 07/11/1991)

April 16, 1991

April 16, 1991

47

NOTIFICATION OF PRO SE LEGAL ASSISTANT by plaintiff James Ronald Haynes ( no pgs: ) (ns) (Entered: 07/11/1991)

April 29, 1991

April 29, 1991

48

ORDER by Judge Joseph P. Kinneary Sr.: Plaintiff ordered to contact telephonically the Chambers not later than 9-4-92 re pending motion (cc: all counsel) ( no pgs: 1) (aq) (Entered: 08/17/1992)

Aug. 14, 1992

Aug. 14, 1992

Mail Returned [48-1] addressed to Plaintiff James Ronald Haynes at SOCF #145-512, PO Box 45699, Lucasville OH 45699 (Return to sender note:"No inmate at SOCF with name stated.") (aq) (Entered: 08/19/1992)

Aug. 19, 1992

Aug. 19, 1992

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 27, 1972

Closing Date: 1985

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Prison inmate challenging constitutionality of prison directive of restricting prisoners' use of white prayer robes to prison chapel

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Ohio Department of Corrections, State

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Free Exercise Clause

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Order Duration: 1983 - None

Issues

General:

Religious programs / policies

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination

Type of Facility:

Government-run