Gary Michael Quick v. J. F. Thompkins, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Gary Michael Quick v. J. F. Thompkins, Etc.

425 F.2d 260, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10037

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1970

Docket28903_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 425 F.2d 260 (Gary Michael Quick v. J. F. Thompkins, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gary Michael Quick v. J. F. Thompkins, Etc., 425 F.2d 260, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10037 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Gary Michael Quick appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. We affirm. 1

The petitioner-appellant alleged that he had ordered and paid for various items from the prison canteen, but that the items were not delivered to him; his money not refunded; and that he was told by the sergeant in charge of the prison wing that “it was just too bad” if he did not receive this merchandise. He further alleged that the sergeant threatened to put him in the “hole” on a false disciplinary report if Quick filed a complaint. The district court denied relief stating that the petitioner-appellant should first seek relief through the prison’s administrative channels.

The petitioner-appellant’s allegations are a matter of internal prison administration. Recourse, therefore, must first be sought through administrative channels. Brown v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1308; Hess v. Blackwell, 5 Cir.1968, 409 F.2d 362; Beard v. Lee, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F.2d 749, 751.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is, therefore, appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily under this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2). Kimbrough v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

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

PER CURIAM:

Gary Michael Quick appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. We affirm. 1

The petitioner-appellant alleged that he had ordered and paid for various items from the prison canteen, but that the items were not delivered to him; his money not refunded; and that he was told by the sergeant in charge of the prison wing that “it was just too bad” if he did not receive this merchandise. He further alleged that the sergeant threatened to put him in the “hole” on a false disciplinary report if Quick filed a complaint. The district court denied relief stating that the petitioner-appellant should first seek relief through the prison’s administrative channels.

The petitioner-appellant’s allegations are a matter of internal prison administration. Recourse, therefore, must first be sought through administrative channels. Brown v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1308; Hess v. Blackwell, 5 Cir.1968, 409 F.2d 362; Beard v. Lee, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F.2d 749, 751.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is, therefore, appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily under this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2). Kimbrough v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F.2d 260, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-michael-quick-v-j-f-thompkins-etc-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack