James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton

Fifth Circuit

James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton

478 F.2d 855, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 7, 1973

Docket73-1279

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 478 F.2d 855 (James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton) 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

James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton, 478 F.2d 855, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, petitioner James Henry Eisenhardt, a former inmate of the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, seeks redress in the form of damages from various prison officials for a tort which he dubs “abuse of process.” The genesis of the conflict is a certain misconduct report filed by the defendants and charging the petitioner with the unlawful use of a prison typewriter to type a court petition. After months of patient accommodation to this law suit, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

While this court earnestly seeks to remain detached from the every day administrative problems of a prison, Royal v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 501; Krist v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 146; Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9, we are never reluctant to strike down impediments to a prisoner’s constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts. See Cruz v. Hauck, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 475. But the availability of a typewriter is not necessary for judicial review. Durham v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 838; Tarlton v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 200; Stubblefield v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 26; Sprouse v. Moore & Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 476 F.2d 995. Unless judicial intervention *856 is necessary to secure constitutional rights, the courts will not interfere with matters of pure internal prison management. Clearly,' appellant’s conduct here is just such a matter.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, petitioner James Henry Eisenhardt, a former inmate of the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, seeks redress in the form of damages from various prison officials for a tort which he dubs “abuse of process.” The genesis of the conflict is a certain misconduct report filed by the defendants and charging the petitioner with the unlawful use of a prison typewriter to type a court petition. After months of patient accommodation to this law suit, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

While this court earnestly seeks to remain detached from the every day administrative problems of a prison, Royal v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 501; Krist v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 146; Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9, we are never reluctant to strike down impediments to a prisoner’s constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts. See Cruz v. Hauck, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 475. But the availability of a typewriter is not necessary for judicial review. Durham v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 838; Tarlton v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 200; Stubblefield v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 26; Sprouse v. Moore & Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 476 F.2d 995. Unless judicial intervention *856 is necessary to secure constitutional rights, the courts will not interfere with matters of pure internal prison management. Clearly,' appellant’s conduct here is just such a matter.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 F.2d 855, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-henry-eisenhardt-v-s-j-britton-ca5-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack