GEORGE HORN, APPELLEE,
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RICHARD A. MCGEE, AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR, WALTER DUNBAR, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, FRED R. DICKSON, ADULT AND PAROLE MEMBER, ROBERT A. HEINZE, WARDEN, FOLSOM PRISON, ET AL., STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPELLANTS
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 order, finding that the plaintiff's grievances were not specifically alleged to result from generally applicable rules or regulations.
Plaintiff filed a civil rights case against prison officials. The district court had previously issued an order in the case.…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We affirm the district court order in this civil rights case principally for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court, reported in Horn v. People of California, et al., 321 F.Supp. 961 (E.D.Cal.1968).
We wish to add, however, that if any of the grievances alleged by plaintiff are the direct result of the enforcement of rules and regulations generally applicable to all prison inmates, the personal defendants, if any, who promulgated such rules and regulations may, to that extent, be able to establish an immunity defense, based upon discretionary governmental action. We do not reach that question now because the grievances, as described in the complaint, are not specifically alleged to result from, or to result exclusively from, the enforcement of regulations of that kind.
As the district court observed in its opinion, the defendants may also have a complete defense if they can show that they were acting in good faith. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967).