TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gerald Gaugh v. Wilbur J. Schmidt and Sanger B. Powers

Gerald GAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbur J. SCHMIDT and Sanger B. Powers, Defendants-Appellants

Gaugh v. Schmidt, 498 F.2d 10 (7th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 5, 1974
Docket
No. 74-1073
Judges
Hastings, Per Curiam, Sprecher, Steckler
Citations
498 F.2d 101974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8300

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Wilbur J. Schmidt, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, and Sanger B. Powers, Administrator of the Division of Corrections of Wisconsin, appealed from an order enjoining them “from denying published materials to plaintiff and other persons confined at adult institutions . . . unless judicial proceedings are instituted against the publications within 15 days from receipt at the institution. . . . ”

** *11 In the district court’s opinion, it held that “censorship of reading matter ordered by prisoners can be undertaken only in accord with the procedures for prior administrative restraint of expression enunciated in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 , 85 S.Ct. 734 , 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965), and Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 , 91 S.Ct. 423 , 27 L.Ed.2d 498 (1971).” The district judge therefore concluded that “[he] must enjoin defendants Schmidt and Powers from denying plaintiff access to reading matter he has ordered unless they initiate judicial proceedings against the reading matter promptly upon its receipt at the correctional institution.” Gaugh v. Schmidt, 369 F.Supp. 877, 880 (W.D.Wis.1974).

The court applied different standards to the censorship of prisoner mail than those subsequently set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 , 42 U.S.L.W. 4606 (1974). We therefore vacate the injunctive order and remand the cause for further proceedings in the light of that case.

Vacated and remanded.

** The plaintiff had been denied receipt of three paperback books ordered by him through the mail containing explicit descriptions of sexual acts and perversions, and described by defendants as pornographic.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 11976: 22009: 119752026peak 1976 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Abcon Associates, Inc.No. 07-3868 (2d Cir. May 7, 2009)
  2. Gary D. Carpenter v. State of South Dakota536 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1976)
  3. Marvin Lee Aikens v. Leo D. Jenkins, Etc.534 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1976)
  4. Aikens v. Lash390 F. Supp. 663 (N.D. Ind. 1975)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Abcon Associates, Inc.No. 07-3868 (2d Cir. May 7, 2009)
  2. Gary D. Carpenter v. State of South Dakota536 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1976)
  3. Marvin Lee Aikens v. Leo D. Jenkins, Etc.534 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1976)
  4. Aikens v. Lash390 F. Supp. 663 (N.D. Ind. 1975)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) 2,287
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) 1,154
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971) 205
Gaugh v. Schmidt, 369 F. Supp. 877 (W.D. Wis. 1974) 2

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