David Green v. United States

283 F.2d 687, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedNovember 15, 1960
Docket13224_1
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 687 (David Green v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319 (3d Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in his petition in this cause asked the district court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Bureau of Prisons and the Lewisburg Warden “commanding them, together to show cause for denial of corresponding under the mailing privilege of the said penitentiary and the provisions of the said article [Article 1 of the United States Constitution] forthwith before the Court or officer granting the said writ.” He alleged that he had been denied the privilege of placing a minister of his faith “on his regular mailing list for further instructions and future guidance.”

The district court, properly interpreting the petition as one asking for relief in the nature of mandamus, held:

“In the United States District Courts mandamus or its equivalent is of an ancillary nature only, except in the District of Columbia, and an original proceeding will not lie.”

That decision is entirely sound. Truth Seeker Co. v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 54; Fussa v. Taylor, D.C., M.D.Pa.1958, 168 F.Supp. 302.

In addition, appellant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Under the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Prisons, there is available to all prisoners, the right of the “Prisoner’s Mail Box.” This procedure sets up an effective means of review of actions of local prison authorities. See Lowe v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1948, 77 F.Supp. 303, 305.

As stated in the Mail Regulations, Section g, rev. February 23, 1944:

“The ‘Prisoner’s Mail Box’ in each institution is designed to provide any inmate the opportunity to write directly, without inspection by institutional authorities, to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, * * * regarding any matter of importance to the individual, to the inmate group as a whole, or any matter of importance affecting the institution and its personnel or officials. The prisoner’s mail box is open to all inmates regardless of their status.”

This case presents an alleged situation in which administrative review should have been utilized. Appellant asserts deprivation of a fundamental right by the Warden of the Lewisburg Penitentiary. The claim implies an abuse of discretion by that official. However, in the administration of federal prisons primary supervision is delegated by statute to the Bureau of Prisons, 62 Stat. 849, 18 U.S.C. § 4042. By that law the *689 Bureau is directly responsible for the control and maintenance of all such institutions and has the power to review any action taken by the local wardens.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

Related

Payne v. Day
440 F. Supp. 785 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1977)
In Re Muszalski
52 Cal. App. 3d 500 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Leslie D. Willis v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone
506 F.2d 1011 (Eighth Circuit, 1974)
James X. Waddell v. Noah L. Alldredge, Warden
480 F.2d 1078 (Third Circuit, 1973)
Kochie v. Norton
343 F. Supp. 956 (D. Connecticut, 1972)
Evans v. Harris
341 F. Supp. 609 (D. Kansas, 1972)
King v. Norton
336 F. Supp. 255 (D. Connecticut, 1972)
Michael A. Light v. United States
430 F.2d 932 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
John Reuben Paden v. United States
430 F.2d 882 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Donald K. Hess v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden
409 F.2d 362 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Murphy v. Surgeon General, U. S. Public Health Service
269 F. Supp. 227 (United States District Court for the District of Arkansas, 1967)
Heft v. Parker
258 F. Supp. 507 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1966)
United States ex rel. McCode v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
246 F. Supp. 801 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1965)
United States ex rel. Johnson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
247 F. Supp. 365 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1965)
United States ex rel. Holland v. Prasse
241 F. Supp. 566 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F.2d 687, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-green-v-united-states-ca3-1960.