John Blake v. H. H. Pryse, Warden, Sandstone, Minnesota, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D. C.

444 F.2d 218, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9203
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1971
Docket20600_1
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 444 F.2d 218 (John Blake v. H. H. Pryse, Warden, Sandstone, Minnesota, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Blake v. H. H. Pryse, Warden, Sandstone, Minnesota, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D. C., 444 F.2d 218, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9203 (8th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, John Blake, currently an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota, believes that he is being deprived of his federal civil and constitutional rights because prison officials require him to shave and cut his hair. His petition, heretofore filed in the District of Minnesota, sought injunctive relief, claiming a civil and constitutional right to the length, style and growth of his hair and the growing of a beard and moustache to suit his personal desires. The District Court, the Honorable Philip Neville, after holding an evidentiary hearing, denied relief. Blake v. Pryse, 315 F.Supp. 625 (D.Minn.1970). Petitioner appeals.

We think it evident that the regulation in question, however annoying it may be to petitioner personally, does not deprive him of any federal civil or constitutional right. Absent a deprivation of a constitutional right, the federal courts will not interfere with the administration of the prison system. The courts are not superwardens nor are the courts designed to function as administrative overseers of functions entrusted to the executive branch of government. The petitioner, a sentenced inmate, is under the general supervision and control of the Attorney General of the United States.

An individual upon incarceration loses certain personal freedoms and rights and is under a temporary duty to conform to reasonable institutional regulations. The courts will not interfere with prison regulations and discipline except in exceptional circumstances and those involving cruel and unusual punishment. We find neither here. The trial court’s published opinion adequately deals with the issue in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Hurley v. Ward
448 F. Supp. 1227 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Moskowitz v. Wilkinson
432 F. Supp. 947 (D. Connecticut, 1977)
Burgin v. Henderson
536 F.2d 501 (Second Circuit, 1976)
Wilbert Eugene Proffitt v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone
506 F.2d 1020 (Eighth Circuit, 1974)
Poe v. Werner
386 F. Supp. 1014 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Teterud v. Gillman
385 F. Supp. 153 (S.D. Iowa, 1974)
Rinehart v. Brewer
360 F. Supp. 105 (S.D. Iowa, 1973)
Smith v. Sampson
349 F. Supp. 268 (D. New Hampshire, 1972)
Howard v. Warden, Petersburg Reformatory
348 F. Supp. 1204 (E.D. Virginia, 1972)
United States Ex Rel. Goings v. Aaron
350 F. Supp. 1 (D. Minnesota, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
444 F.2d 218, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-blake-v-h-h-pryse-warden-sandstone-minnesota-federal-bureau-of-ca8-1971.