On May 15, 1995, inmates at the Mecklenburg Correctional Center in Virginia filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Virginia Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April, 1985, the prison had come under the authority of ...
read more >
On May 15, 1995, inmates at the Mecklenburg Correctional Center in Virginia filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Virginia Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April, 1985, the prison had come under the authority of the Mecklenburg Consent Decree Settlement Agreement, and the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the defendants were violating the consent decree and their constitutional rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs complained that the defendants had denied them work programs, educational programs, and transfers to other facilities so that they could practice their religious diet, as well as provided them with small recreation facilities and lead in the prison water system.
On January 7, 1997, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Judge Rebecca Beach Smith) granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the denial of work opportunities and educational programs did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, that denial of transfers to other facilities so that inmates could practice their religious diet did not violate the Constitution or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that the allegedly small recreation facilities were not unconstitutional, that officials did not violate the Constitution with respect to lead in the prison water system, and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Gholson v. Murry, 953 F.Supp. 709 (E.D.Va. 1977). The plaintiffs appealed.
On June 4, 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals.
Kristen Sagar - 05/04/2006
compress summary
