Banning v. Looney, Warden

Tenth Circuit

Banning v. Looney, Warden

213 F.2d 771, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4709

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 1954

Docket4853

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 213 F.2d 771 (Banning v. Looney, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banning v. Looney, Warden, 213 F.2d 771, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4709 (10th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is confined under judgment of conviction in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. In substance his complaint in this proceeding is that his constitutional rights are being violated by the prison authorities, in that he is not permitted to process directly with the U. S. Patent Office an alleged invention which he claims to have developed. He complains that the prison rules and regulations require him to process the matter first through the office of Director of Bureau of Prisons. He also asked the trial court to inquire into his attempted escape record at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and to compel the prison authorities there to remove the “infamous lie” from his record.

Courts are without power to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations. Neither have we power to inquire with respect to the prisoner’s detention in the Lewisburg Prison. No authorities are needed to support those statements. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is confined under judgment of conviction in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. In substance his complaint in this proceeding is that his constitutional rights are being violated by the prison authorities, in that he is not permitted to process directly with the U. S. Patent Office an alleged invention which he claims to have developed. He complains that the prison rules and regulations require him to process the matter first through the office of Director of Bureau of Prisons. He also asked the trial court to inquire into his attempted escape record at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and to compel the prison authorities there to remove the “infamous lie” from his record.

Courts are without power to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations. Neither have we power to inquire with respect to the prisoner’s detention in the Lewisburg Prison. No authorities are needed to support those statements. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F.2d 771, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banning-v-looney-warden-ca10-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack