MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, an inmate in the West Virginia Penitentiary at Moundsville, commenced this action to redress alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights arising from his transfer to the maximum security section of the penitentiary. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief. Jurisdiction is invoked under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
Plaintiff, in his pro se complaint, alleged that he was denied due process and subjected to double jeopardy as a result of his transfer' on December 3, 1973, to the prison’s maximum security section.1 At trial, Plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint to allege denial of due process in connection with a *822second transfer to maximum security on September 6, 1974.
By memorandum order, entered on October 31, 1974, the Court dismissed the double jeopardy claim.2
On October 19, 1974, defendants Gordon Faulkner, Director of the West Virginia Division of Corrections, and Major Ready, a penitentiary guard, both moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Major Ready argued that the complaint should fall as to him because there is no allegation that he committed any act which violated plaintiff’s civil rights. Defendant Faulkner sought dismissal because “no personal involvement” by him was alleged. In particular, Faulkner asserted that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court agreed with defendants Ready and Faulkner that they cannot be held liable for damages without some showing that they were personally involved. Nevertheless, the Court determined that the continued presence of Ready and Faulkner in this action was proper for the purpose of resolving any equitable issues which might be present.3
John Marshall, III, an experienced trial attorney in both state and federal courts, responded affirmatively to the Court's request to represent the plaintiff in this action. Mr. Marshall is presently City Solicitor for the City of Wheeling, West Virginia, and is a former Assistant United States Attorney. Because of the similarity of issues in this and several other state prisoner civil rights cases pending before this Court, an order was entered on April 2, 1975, designating Mr. Marshall as counsel of record for sixteen prisoner plaintiffs.4
*823After extensive pre-trial discovery,5 a consolidated trial of this and other companion civil rights suits brought by penitentiary inmates was commenced on April 22, 1975.6
*824At trial in this consolidated action, the Court, sitting without a jury, first heard all of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Defense testimony was presented at the conclusion of all evidence offered by the plaintiffs. Since these consolidated civil actions involved extensive similarity of factual issues, defense witnesses testified as to certain general conditions, policies and activities at the West Virginia Penitentiary. This testimony thus provided background information which was of great assistance to the Court in considering the specific issues raised by the individual plaintiffs. The Court believes that the procedural development of these prisoner civil rights cases was not only efficient but, more importantly, did not minimize the consideration to which each plaintiff is entitled. The consolidated discovery, pre-trial and trial procedures in these cases prevented needless repetition and resulting loss of time not only for the Court but also for the parties, counsel and nonparty witnesses. (See footnote 9, infra, for the procedure for final disposition of the individual cases.)
Turning to plaintiff Collins’ transfer to the maximum security section on December 3, 1973, Collins admitted at trial that this transfer and confinement was immediately preceded by his apprehension on the front lawn of the penitentiary, after he had jumped from a window. The Acting Warden at the penitentiary, Arthur L. McKenzie, testified that the Plaintiff was incarcerated in maximum security following this escape effort only until escape charges brought in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West Virginia, were resolved. Plaintiff was released from maximum security confinement around mid-August 1974, after he was given a one-year sentence for escape in the Circuit Court of Marshall County.
Where there is probable cause to believe that an inmate has engaged in criminal activity, a temporary change in his security status may be effected pending disposition of the criminal matter without having “the usual adversary hearing aimed at deciding the ultimate factual issues.” Almanza v. Oliver, 368 F.Supp. 981, 984 (E.D.Va.1973). Escape from the penitentiary is a criminal offense, West Virginia Code, Section 61-5-10. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim of denial of due process with respect to his December 3, 1973, transfer to the maximum security section fails in light of the evidence presented and the applicable law.7 This disposes of the claims raised in Plaintiff’s pro se complaint.
Although neither alleged nor suggested in plaintiff Collins’ pro se pleadings, *825it developed at trial that prison officials returned Collins to maximum security in September 1974, because of his alleged .participation in a conspiracy to escape. Upon motion made during trial, the Court allowed plaintiff Collins to amend his complaint to allege a denial of due process by reason of his confinement to maximum security beginning September 6, 1974.
The evidence reflected that on September 6, 1974, the Plaintiff was administratively segregated to what is referred to as the prison’s Adjustment Center, which is the maximum security unit. This action was taken when inmate information and other investigation revealed that Plaintiff and five other inmates were planning an escape from the penitentiary. Acting Warden McKenzie testified that plaintiff Collins appeared before the penitentiary’s Disciplinary Committee on the charge of conspiracy to escape. However, McKenzie acknowledged that all the procedural due process steps required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), were not followed. For example, the testimony indicated that plaintiff Collins was not given advance written notice of the charges against him, nor was he given a “ ‘written statement by the [Disciplinary Committee] as to the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the disciplinary action.” (Id. at 564, 94 S.Ct. at 2979).
Acting Warden McKenzie further testified that plaintiff Collins was reassigned to maximum security on September 6, 1974, to await disposition of the charge of conspiracy to escape. When the Prosecuting Attorney of Marshall County, West Virginia, elected not to seek an indictment against Plaintiff, the alleged violation was referred back to the prison administration for disciplinary action and, as a result, Plaintiff was kept in maximum security until January 1975. Reports to the effect that Plaintiff conspired to escape appear in his prison record. The Acting Warden assumed that information concerning the administrative action on the alleged escape conspiracy was forwarded to the West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole.
The thrust of plaintiff Collins’ attack on his confinement in the maximum security section of the penitentiary from September 1974 into January 1975 goes to the denial of procedural due process. The trial testimony adduced with respect to plaintiff Collins, together with Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1, convinces the Court that the requirements of Wolff, supra, which was decided over two months prior to Collins’ transfer to maximum security, were not fully complied with, and that Collins is entitled to some relief on this basis. The Court believes, however, that the relief to be afforded should be equitable in nature. The circumstances of this case, when considered in light of the fluidity of this currently emerging field of law, do not establish the absence of good faith on the part of the prison authorities which would subject them to liability for monetary damages. Skinner v. Spellman, 480 F.2d 539 (4th Cir. 1973); Eslinger v. Thomas, 476 F.2d 225 (4th Cir. 1973).8
*826At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Marshall, plaintiff Collins’ attorney, joined by counsel who represented other prisoner plaintiffs in the consolidated trial, raised matters which go far beyond the issues raised by the pro se complaint and the amendment permitted during trial. By motion, Mr. Marshall advanced a new theory and sought to inject a new prayer for relief in these prisoner actions. Specifically, Mr. Marshall asserted that the rules and regulations in effect at the penitentiary were not promulgated pursuant to West Virginia statute and asked that the inmate-litigants’ prison records “be expunged of any mention” of “discipline, punishment or any loss of privileges or solitary confinement”.9 Mr. Marshall further stated:
We submit that the punishment of these inmates over the last two years was not dealt or handed out as a result of the rules and regulations of the commissioner of public institutions, but rather as a result of. the rules and regulations prepared by the associate warden and the warden. And therefore, any punishment or any type of restrictions are unlawful and they are not as a result of any authorized rules and regulations.
While the motion has certain constitutional overtones, it raises overriding questions of state law which the Court *827believes should not, and cannot, be disposed of in this forum at this time. However, some discussion of the ramifications of the motion is useful for a general understanding of these prisoner cases, even though the consolidated trial was not conducted with a view to the development of the issues implicit in the post-evidentiary motion.
The responsibility for overseeing the West Virginia Penitentiary is vested in the State Commissioner of Public Institutions. West Virginia Code, Section 25-1-3, provides: “The state commissioner of public institutions shall manage, direct, control and govern the West Virginia penitentiary . .” West Virginia Code, Section 25-1-5, gives the Commissioner “power to adopt rules and regulations for the government of [certain] institutions”, including the penitentiary. Finally, West Virginia Code, Section 28-5-2, requires that the Commissioner “shall make such rules and regulations as the commissioner may deem best as to the treatment of the convicts, their discipline, punishment, diet, clothing, social intercourse, . . . the manner and duration of solitary confinement and other punishments . . . .”
Plaintiff Collins’ motion attacks the prison rules and regulations of the “last two years” (i. e., from mid-1973 forward) on the ground that they were “prepared by the associate warden and the warden.”
The testimony and exhibits offered during trial in the consolidated actions brought by prisoners represented by Messrs. Marshall, Vieweg and Hess make it clear that from March 1973 to July 1973 the West Virginia Penitentiary was caught up in rioting which was virtually continuous. A group of allegedly incorrigible prisoners was essentially in control of the penitentiary and a true state of emergency prevailed.
In July 1973, Donald E. Bordenkircher was appointed Warden of the Penitentiary and began with his staff, including the now Acting Warden McKenzie, to take necessary steps to control the rioting, restore institutional security, insure protection of inmates and restore other normal functions of the institution. The prison staff was aided in this effort by large numbers of West Virginia State Policemen who were temporarily assigned to duty in the penitentiary. Construction of an area designed to house incorrigible prisoners was completed. On July 19 and 20, 1973, twenty allegedly incorrigible inmates were confined to the new maximum security section, also known as the Adjustment Center or the North Hall Segregation Unit. This action was taken as to the twenty after prison officials studied prison records, court records and incident reports. Conduct of individual inmates during the rioting was also noted.
According to Acting Warden McKenzie, the restoration of order included the development of rules and regulations to govern the conduct of both prison administrative personnel and the inmates. From McKenzie’s trial testimony, it appears that these rules were formulated in July and August 1973 by the Warden and other members of his staff. McKenzie testified that the rules were distributed to all inmates and staff personnel. McKenzie did not know whether the rules were sanctioned by the Commissioner of Public Institutions. In addition, Acting Warden McKenzie did not know of any rules and regulations forwarded to the penitentiary by the Commissioner since July 1, 1973, the date McKenzie joined the staff.10
*828Because Collins’ case was basically an attack upon two transfers to maximum security, one occurring in December 1973, and the other in September 1974, there was little or no development of the question of the existence, content or source of any rules and regulations which might have been in effect prior to July 1973.
Assuming arguendo that either the Commissioner of Public Institutions had failed to promulgate rules and regulations for the penitentiary, or that the rules existing in July 1973 had not been effective, a question arises concerning the Warden’s independent powers.
The West Virginia Code, Section 28-5-3, gives the Warden broad powers:
The warden shall be the chief executive officer of the penitentiary, and shall have charge of its internal police and management, and provide for feeding, clothing, working and taking care of the convicts, subject to the control of the state commissioner of public institutions. The warden shall promptly enforce all orders, rules and regulations made by the commissioner of ¿ublic institutions, enforce strict discipline among the convicts, protect and preserve the property of the State, and may for that purpose punish the convicts, or cause them to be punished, in the manner authorized by the commissioner of public institutions.
Moreover, it is normally and properly the province of prison administrators to manage prisons within their broad grant of discretion. Sewell v. Pegelow, 291 F.2d 196 (4th Cir. 1961); Davis v. United States, 316 F.Supp. 80 (E.D.Mo.1970).
To treat Plaintiff’s motion concerning the prison rules as a claim and dispose of it in this litigation could amount to needless interference with West Virginia’s administration of its own affairs. First, this Court believes that the Courts of West Virginia should have the initial opportunity to pass upon the meaning of the West Virginia statutes so far as the relative powers of the State Commissioner of Public Institutions and the Warden of the penitentiary are concerned. Second, the challenged rules and regulations were obviously the product of emergency conditions and the question of the Warden’s administrative powers, vis-á-vis other state officials, in the face of a complete breakdown in the prison discipline involves a matter of paramount interest to the State. For these reasons, this Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction to determine the questions of state law raised by plaintiff Collins’ motion at the conclusion of the evidence. See, Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-27, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).
At the end of the motion, Mr. Marshall also attacked the 1973 rules and regulations on very general constitutional grounds. Mr. Marshall said: “These individuals have been deprived of their rights in regard to their constitutional needs.”
Full factual development of the issues implicit in the motion might well reveal the absence of any constitutional question cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, Milburn v. Fogg, 393 F.Supp. 1164 (S.D.N.Y.1975). But to the extent that a federal constitutional issue might be raised, it is clearly overshadowed by compelling issues of West Virginia law. Indeed, an adjudication of the state law issues in a West Virginia tribunal might well avoid the necessity of reaching any federal constitutional question which might be present. Therefore, abstention appears appropriate here not only to minimize federal-state friction over a purely state affair, i. e., the power of the Warden under the West Virginia Code, but also to avoid premature and perhaps unnecessary constitutional adjudication. Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 54-55, 94 S.Ct. 303, 38 L.Ed.2d 260 (1973); Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943); Fralin & Waldron, Inc., v. City of Martinsville, Virginia, 493 F.2d 481 *829(4th Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the Court abstains from deciding any constitutional question which might be implicit in the motion challenging the validity of present prison regulations under West Virginia law.
Finally, it would be unfair and prejudicial to the defendants for the Court to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Marshall’s motion on behalf of the prisoners, especially since it would entail consideration of a new prayer for relief injected at the very end of the case. There was only scanty factual development of the issues suggested by the motion. The conduct of the trial was governed by the claims in the initial pleadings and the amendments permitted during trial. See, Standard Title Insurance Co. v. Roberts, 349 F.2d 613 (8th Cir. 1965); Armstrong Cork Company v. Lyons, 366 F.2d 206 (8th Cir. 1966).
For the reasons stated above, it is ordered that plaintiff Collins’ prayer for relief arising out of his December 3, 1973, transfer to the maximum security unit of the West Virginia Penitentiary be, and the same is, denied..
It is further ordered that plaintiff Collins take nothing in his claim for monetary damages.
It is further ordered that the defendants, within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty days, shall expunge from the records of plaintiff Collins all indications of disciplinary action which resulted in Collins’ confinement in maximum security, beginning September 6, 1974. In the alternative, defendants may afford plaintiff a new hearing on the administrative charges of conspiracy to escape. If a new hearing is granted, plaintiff shall be given written notice of the charges no less than 24 hours prior to the hearing. In addition, after completion of the hearing, the prison’s Disciplinary Committee must provide the plaintiff with a written statement of its findings, the reasons for any disciplinary action taken and the evidence relied upon by the committee. This statement of evidence need not set forth the names of any inmate informants or any facts which, in the opinion of prison administrators, could imperil institutional safety or lead to the identity of inmate informants. If the statement properly excludes certain items of evidence, “the statement should indicate the fact of the omission.” Wolff, supra, 418 U.S. at 565, 94 S.Ct. at 2979.
It is further ordered that the defendants shall, within thirty days from the date of entry of this order, advise the Court in writing of the alternative chosen and of the action taken with respect to the Plaintiff.
It is further ordered that plaintiff Collins’ post-evidentiary motion to erase completely his prison disciplinary record because prison rules and regulations allegedly were not promulgated in accordance with West Virginia statutes be, and the same is, denied. This denial is without prejudice to Collins’ assertion of the issues suggested by the motion in West Virginia courts and is further without prejudice to the proper assertion of such issues in this Court if he is denied proper relief by West Virginia courts.
The Court notes that several cases involving penitentiary disciplinary proceedings which are challenged under Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, have been filed in this Court. Accordingly, the Court suggests that the Defendants attempt the initiation of steps which would lead to the promulgation of written rules and regulations for the penitentiary which meet the requirements of Wolff. To this end, the Court would further suggest that the West Virginia Commissioner of Public Institutions and the State’s Attorney General be consulted and that West Virginia statutory requirements be considered. This might well avoid needless litigation in this Court and in the state courts. The Court requests that it be advised once each thirty days of efforts taken in connection with the development of such written rules and regulations.
Should the plaintiff desire to appeal the decision of this Court, written notice *830of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from the date of the entry of this order, pursuant to Rule 4, Federal Rules of Appel-' late Procedure.
The Court further orders that John Marshall, III, be, and he is, relieved from further service as attorney for the Plaintiff in this case, with the Court’s appreciation for having performed his duties in a capable, able and highly professional manner.
The foregoing shall serve as the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.