JOHN LOUIS MERTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WARREN PINTO, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON FARM, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights action.
A New Jersey prisoner sued prison officials alleging injuries from a fall and arbitrary denial of sentence time credits. The district court dismissed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, a New Jersey prisoner, appeals from a district court order granting the motion to dismiss, filed by defendant officials of the Rahway, New Jersey, State Prison, his civil rights action.1 After careful consideration of the record and the briefs of counsel, we have concluded that the district court should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Whipple.
There can be no recovery under the Civil Rights Act for injuries resulting from plaintiff’s September 1967 fall.2 See Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F. 2d 1, 6 (3d Cir. 1970); Kent v. Prasse, 265 F. Supp. 673, 675 (W.D.Pa.1967), aff’d, 385 F. 2d 406, 407 (3d Cir. 1967). Also, the record, including the complaint,3 does not support the contention of plaintiff that he has been “arbitrarily and capriciously” denied the equal opportunity to earn full-minimum time credits off his sentence due to his assignment as a porter. See Harris v. Yeager, 291 F.Supp. 1015, 1017-1018 (D.N.J.1968), aff’d, 410 F. 2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1969).4
Affirmed.
. The district court order also denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and resulted from a five-page opinion of April 5, 1971 (Document 16, Civil No. 1012-70, D.N.J.), 343 F.Supp. 374.
. We note that the plaintiff has filed no counter-affidavit challenging the allega-fidavit (Document 11, Civil No. 1012-70, D.N.J.), that “at the time of the accident the machine [meat grinder] was not operating.”
. See Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F. 2d 213, 215 (3d Cir. 1967).
. See, also, cases cited at top of page 4 (including note 3) of the district court opinion mentioned above at note 1.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taliferro v. N.J. Parole Bd., 460 F.2d 289 (3d Cir. 1972)
Authorities Cited
- Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970)
- Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967)
- Kent v. Prasse, 385 F.2d 406 (3d Cir. 1967)
- Roscoe Joseph Harris v. Yeager, 410 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1969)