Court Opinion

ID: 9476332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:53:17.838089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:15.439845
License: Public Domain

LAY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly agree that the pro se pleading sets forth a possible basis for judicial relief under § 1983. This is so because complainants allege that authorities are *520practicing a form of “racial discrimination” at the prison. I respectfully submit that the issue is not, as Judge Wollman states, whether there exists a constitutional right to have a boxing program at the prison. Clearly there is no such constitutional right. The internal policies of correctional authorities regarding prison programs are within the officials’ discretion and are not of judicial concern so long as no form of racial discrimination is practiced in their implementation. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974).
While liberal construction of pro se pleadings under Haines does not allow the filing of frivolous suits, allegations of racial discrimination should not be ignored, and courts must be cautious in rejecting such complaints out of hand. I suggest that on remand the magistrate require the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment and to file affidavits setting forth the factual support, if any exists, for the racial discrimination alleged. If factual support is lacking, then the district court should dismiss the case without proceeding further.