James Joseph O'Brien v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden

421 F.2d 844, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11234
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 1970
Docket28269
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 421 F.2d 844 (James Joseph O'Brien v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden) 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 Joseph O'Brien v. Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, 421 F.2d 844, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11234 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

O’Brien appeals from an order of the District Court denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to require prison officials to place in the mail his letters to an alleged minister not on O’Brien’s approved mailing list. We affirm. 1

O’Brien is a federal prisoner. In its initial order, and again on O’Brien’s motion to reconsider, the District Court held that the complaint was insufficient to state a claim for violation of O’Brien’s constitutional rights, that even if the complaint were sufficient there was no showing that O’Brien had exhausted his administrative remedies; and in any event that this is an area of prison administration with which the courts should not interfere. We agree.

O’Brien’s arguments that he is being denied his freedom of religion, and that it was error for the District Court to *845 have denied him an evidentiary hearing are without merit. We have been “very chary about interfering in the internal operation and administration of prison systems, and we have done so only in exceptional cases and then only when available administrative remedies within the prison organization had been exhausted.” Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 9, 12. See Diehl v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1970, 419 F.2d 1309.

Affirmed.

1

. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 F.2d 844, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-joseph-obrien-v-olin-g-blackwell-warden-ca5-1970.