Case Name: In the Matter of Jamie Barnes, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent; In the Matter of Jamie (Cid) Barnes, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1976-04-06
Citations: 39 N.Y.2d 721
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jamie Barnes, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent. In the Matter of Jamie (Cid) Barnes, Appellant, v J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 721–727

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jamie Barnes, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent. In the Matter of Jamie (Cid) Barnes, Appellant, v J. Edwin La Vallee, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Argued February 17, 1976;
decided April 6, 1976
Ira P. Sloane for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Anne M. Srebro for appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Frederick R. Walsh and Jean M. Coon of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. Orders in both proceedings are affirmed, without costs. Despite able and earnest presentations by counsel (assigned by this court) in each proceeding, the fact remains that the initiating petitions are legally insufficient. Among other things, they fail to allege facts to establish the preconditions to the relief requested. Moreover, the gravamen in each petition is too general, vague, and insufficient to permit the court to consider other than abstract questions about an inadequately described or identified "religion" and its purported requirements, or the "literature" which concededly refers to a poster not before this court as a part of the record. This protracted and futile litigation should never have proceeded this far through three levels of courts. On the other hand, petitioner is an imprisoned and a more or less incoherent, indigent litigant who should have received better assistance at the nisi prius level. The disposition is without prejudice to the making of new applications to the Supreme Court of jurisdiction which should assign counsel to restate, if necessary, and prosecute the applications on behalf of petitioner. Then, as appropriate, on notice to proper parties, the court should promptly resolve the issues raised, if any, and grant such relief, if any, as may be indicated.