Case: Mayberry v. Maroney

2:68-cv-00959 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: July 29, 1966

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 29, 1966, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania brought a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the prison's superintendent in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that physical abuse and defamation violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. On July 29, 1966, the United States District Court for the Western …

On July 29, 1966, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania brought a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the prison's superintendent in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that physical abuse and defamation violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

On July 29, 1966, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Judge Wallace S. Gourley) dismissed the lawsuit, holding that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because it involved a state question. On February 20, 1967, the United States Supreme Court refused the plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari. Mayberry v. Maroney, 386 U.S. 931 (1967). On April 29, 1968, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Per curium) reversed the District Court's dismissal, finding the legal questions presented in the claim were sufficient to merit the court's attention. Mayberry v. Maroney, 394 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1968).

On December 6, 1971, the District Court (Judge Hubert Irving Teitelbaum) held that the plaintiff's claim of systematic physical abuse could proceed because, if true, the plaintiff's allegations would amount to a deprivation of constitutional rights under the color of law. Mayberry v. Maroney, 337 F. Supp. 601 (W.D. Pa. 1971). The court, however, dismissed the plaintiff's defamation claims because the plaintiff should have claimed deprivation of the right to a fair trial. The court reasoned that raising such claims is only proper in a criminal case. In 1972, the court certified the lawsuit as a class action.

On January 18, 1973, the court approved a consent decree, in which the defendants agreed to stop confining inmates in the Correctional Institutions basement. The State resumed basement housing in December 1973, but waited until October 17, 1974, to ask the court to vacate the consent decree. On January 15, 1975, the District Court granted the motion without hearing because the named plaintiff had been transferred to another prison. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Judge Howard Thomas Markey) remanded, finding that the trial court erred by ruling without an evidentiary hearing. Mayberry v. Maroney, 529 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1976). The appellate court reasoned that the plaintiff retained standing as an inmate of the penal system and could take part in the action. On April 24, 1976, the District Court (Judge Teitelbaum) found that the basement detention facility did not violate the Constitution and vacated the consent judgment. Mayberry v. Maroney, 418 F. Supp. 669 (W.D. Pa. 1976).

On July 7, 1977, the Court of Appeals (Judge Caleb Rodney Layton, III) held that the district judge's refusal to recuse himself for partiality was proper but that the consent decree was improperly vacated because the circumstances had not changed. Mayberry v. Maroney, 558 F.2d 1159 (3rd Cir. 1977).

We have neither the docket nor the pleadings in this case.

Summary Authors

Rebekah Henn Sullivan (7/18/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Forman, Phillip (New Jersey)

Freedman, Abraham Lincoln (Pennsylvania)

Layton, Caleb Rodney III (Delaware)

Markey, Howard Thomas (District of Columbia)

McLaughlin, Gerald (Pennsylvania)

Teitelbaum, Hubert Irving (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Louik, Michael (Pennsylvania)

Rosenfield, Michael L. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Creamer, J. Shane (Pennsylvania)

Duff, John M. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Forman, Phillip (New Jersey)

Freedman, Abraham Lincoln (Pennsylvania)

Layton, Caleb Rodney III (Delaware)

Markey, Howard Thomas (District of Columbia)

McLaughlin, Gerald (Pennsylvania)

Teitelbaum, Hubert Irving (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Louik, Michael (Pennsylvania)

Rosenfield, Michael L. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Creamer, J. Shane (Pennsylvania)

Duff, John M. (Pennsylvania)

Frank, Frederick N. (Pennsylvania)

Kane, Robert P. (Pennsylvania)

Lawley, Frank P. (Pennsylvania)

Nene, Frederick R. (Pennsylvania)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Memorandum Decision

Supreme Court of the United States

386 U.S. 933, 87 S.Ct. 959, 17 L.Ed.2d 807

Feb. 20, 1967 Order/Opinion

Opinion of the Court

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

394 F.2d 181

April 29, 1968 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion

337 F.Supp. 601

Dec. 6, 1971 Order/Opinion

Opinion of the Court

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

529 F.2d 332

Jan. 19, 1976 Order/Opinion

Opinion

418 F.Supp. 669

Aug. 24, 1976 Order/Opinion

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

558 F.2d 1159

July 7, 1977 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 29, 1966

Case Ongoing: Perhaps, but long-dormant

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are inmates incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1973 - None

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Conditions of confinement

Personal injury

Crowding:

Crowding / caseload

Type of Facility:

Government-run