Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07012/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

Unit.ed St.ates Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BOBBY BATTLE, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PARK ANDERSON, his successor; RICHARD ) 

CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State ) 

Penitentiary, and his successor; ) 

J.M. SUNDERLAND, Warden, Oklahoma ) 

State Reformatory, and his successor; ) 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; F. WARREN ) 

BENTON, Director, his successor, and ) 

the current; BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; FRANKE. CAREY, JR., ) 

President; LEROY KIRK; PATRICIA ) 

MONTGOMERY; GARY M. COOK; CHESTER T. ) 

CURTIN; SETH MILLINGTON; WILLIAM R. ) 

THOMPSON, as members and their ) 

successors, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT OJ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7012 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 72-95-CIV) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Bobby Battle, the class representative of inmates incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, appeals from the dismissal 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7012 Document: 010110090742 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 1 
, / 

of his claim of a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth 

Amendment because of racial discrimination. 

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, the order and judgment of the district court is 

VACATED. This case is remanded for a full evidentiary hearing 

concerning compliance at the present date by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) with the existing orders and injunctions 

in this action concerning racial discrimination in violation of 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see 

Battle v. Anderson, 376 F. Supp. 402, 428-30 (E.D. Okla. 1974); 

Battle, 457 F. Supp. 719, 739-40 (E.D. Okla. 1978), along with 

such further actions and orders in connection therewith or 

resulting therefrom as may be appropriate. The evidentiary 

hearing should focus on job assignments, but should also cover 

segregation in celling and dining, as well as other claims of 

discrimination. 

This court is mindful of appellees' concern that forcible 

mixed race double celling, and other actions, could pose a 

security and management problem to the DOC. See Corrected 

Appellees' Answer Brief at 22. As three Justices noted in their 

concurrence to Lee v. Washington, "prison authorities have the 

right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, 

to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, 

discipline, and good order in prisons and jails." 390 U.S. 333, 

334 (1968) (Black, J., concurring). 1 See also Turner v. Safley, 

1 This court expresses no view as to whether the DOC has made 

or can make the showing necessary to satisfy Lee v. Washington. 

[footnote continued] 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7012 Document: 010110090742 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 2 
482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987) (prisoners retain those constitutional 

rights "not inconsistent ... with the legitimate penological 

objectives of the corrections system") (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 

417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974)). However, "a vague fear on the part of 

the authorities that desegregation may result in violence 

is not enough." United States v. Wyandotte County, Kan., 480 F.2d 

969, 971 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1068 (1973). 

JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED. 

[footnote continued] 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

We also note that Lee held that invidious racial discrimination is 

as intolerable within a prison as outside except where essential 

to prison security and discipline. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 

517, 523 (1984) (dictum). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7012 Document: 010110090742 Date Filed: 10/03/1991 Page: 3