TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thomas Ralls, Jr. v. Charles Wolfe, Jr., Associate Warden of Custody, Nebraska Penal Complex

Thomas RALLS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles WOLFE, Jr., Associate Warden of Custody, Nebraska Penal Complex, Respondent-Appellee

Ralls v. Wolfe, 448 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 28, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1049
Judges
Van Oosterhout, Hea-Ney, Ross
Citations
448 F.2d 7781971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7866

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Thomas Ralls, Jr., currently an inmate confined at the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska seeking injunctive relief and damages. The bases for his claim were that he was ordered to remove a cardboard with which he had dimmed the light in his cell in the maximum security unit, while other prisoners were permitted to have their lights so darkened; that he was ordered to shave off his goatee and moustache under threat of being placed in the “hole” and on a restricted diet, while other prisoners were allowed to maintain beards and moustaches; and that, thereafter, he was refused assistance from the inmate legal assistant and use of the law library. The District Court, the Honorable Warren K. Urbom, entered an order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ralls v. Wolfe, 321 F. Supp. 867 (D.Neb.1971).

*779 We agree with the District Court that petitioner had no federal constitutional right to shade the light in his cell, regardless of the claim of invidious discrimination. We further agree that there was sufficient evidence to show petitioner was afforded the legal assistance requested.

This Court has held that an incarcerated prisoner does not have a constitutional right to the length, style and growth of his hair and growing of a beard and moustache to suit his personal desires. Blake v. Pryse, 444 F.2d 218 (8th Cir., 1971) (per curiam).

For the reasons set forth in the District Court’s well reasoned memorandum, we affirm its decision dismissing the complaint.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 11973: 11974: 31978: 11979: 11980: 11987: 119722026peak 1974 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Michael T. Rinehart and Ronald H. Brown v. Lou v. Brewer, Iowa State Penitentiary491 F.2d 705 (8th Cir. 1974)
  2. Wright v. Raines457 F. Supp. 1082 (D. Kan. 1978)
  3. Monahan v. State of Neb.491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980)
  4. Poe v. Werner386 F. Supp. 1014 (M.D. Penn. 1974)
  5. Rinehart v. Brewer360 F. Supp. 105 (S.D. Iowa 1973)
  6. Wilson v. State746 P.2d 1022 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Wilson v. State746 P.2d 1022 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987)
  2. Monahan v. State of Neb.491 F. Supp. 1074 (D. Neb. 1980)
  3. Gamble v. Benton1979 OK 122, 600 P.2d 328
  4. Wright v. Raines457 F. Supp. 1082 (D. Kan. 1978)
  5. Poe v. Werner386 F. Supp. 1014 (M.D. Penn. 1974)
  6. Teterud v. Gillman385 F. Supp. 153 (S.D. Iowa 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Blake v. H. H. Pryse,, Sandstone, Minn., Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Wash., D. C., 444 F.2d 218 (8th Cir. 1971) 13
Ralls v. Wolfe, 321 F. Supp. 867 (D. Neb. 1971) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list