Filed Date: 1963
Clearinghouse coding complete
This was a civil rights case brought under 42 USC Sec. 1983 in the early 1960s by two African American inmates at Lorton Reformatory, a correctional institution operated by the District of Columbia, charging that they had been discriminated against in housing assignments. The inmates had been assigned to dormitories housing only African American inmates. Their requests for transfer to other housing had been denied. Some dormitories were integrated, while others were segregated. The court addressed the question of whether racially-based housing assignments in prisons are illegal race discrimination. Noting that the law allowed for delay in total integration for compelling circumstances, the District Court (Judge Luther Wallace Youngdahl) concluded that proof of a racial imbalance in the dormitories was not sufficient to justify relief for the inmates where the court found that full integration would jeopardize the safety of the prison due to racial friction, particularly between black Muslims and white inmates, including white supremacist groups. Edwards v. Sard, 250 F.Supp. 977 (1966). We have no further information about this case. Westlaw had no direct history of the case. A PACER search similarly found no information on the case.
Summary Authors
Denise Lieberman (10/17/2005)
Youngdahl, Luther Wallace (District of Columbia)
Cooper, George (District of Columbia)
Cashman, James (District of Columbia)
Youngdahl, Luther Wallace (District of Columbia)
Last updated March 31, 2024, 3:03 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: 1963
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Black inmates of correctional institution claiming they had been discriminated against in dormitory assignments
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Lorton Reformatory (Lorton), Regional
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Discrimination-basis:
Type of Facility: