# Roy Buise v. Donald Hudkins, Individually and as Superintendent of the Indiana State Farm

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · September 26, 1978 · 584 F.2d 223

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465146

## Case

- **Full name:** Roy BUISE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald HUDKINS, Individually and as Superintendent of the Indiana State Farm, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** September 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 584 F.2d 223; 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8791
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McMILLEN
- **Judges:** Cummings, McMILLEN, McMillen, Tone
- **Cited by:** 153 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465146

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that a jailhouse lawyer’s retaliatory transfer for providing legal assistance to other prisoners was actionable where the prison had no law library and the plaintiff was the prison’s sole jailhouse lawyer
- holding that prisoners may be entitled to damages for violations of their First Amendment rights
- holding that jailhouse lawyer “may have First Amendment associational rights in writ writing”

## Opinion text

McMILLEN, District Judge,
concurring.
In view of footnote 1, supra, I concur with the foregoing decision, except that I would not remand for the determination of damages arising from plaintiff’s transfer to the State Prison. He is, however, entitled to provable damages on his own behalf for *234 interference with his constitutional rights as an advocate for certain innovations at the State Farm.
Plaintiff seeks damages for his inferior living conditions at the State Prison, despite the fact that he lost no good time and was not otherwise punished. Plaintiff had no constitutional right to remain at the State Farm. Although defendants have the right to reassign him to the prison at any time without any reason or hearing, they are nevertheless now being subjected to the possibility of paying^ damages for doing what they had a right to do. Declaratory or injunctive relief should fully resolve plaintiff’s grievance. To award him damages for living under less desirable conditions than he enjoyed at the Farm is an unmerited windfall and an unwise departure from precedent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9465146. Public record. Not legal advice.