Leon G. Schack v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

Fifth Circuit

Leon G. Schack v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

391 F.2d 608

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 10, 1968·No. 25259·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of injunctive relief to a Florida State convict.

The appellant is an inmate of the Florida State Prison at Raiford. He petitioned the district court for an injunction to obtain the right to have his mail relating to legal proceedings sent “postage prepaid by certified mail — return receipt requested”. It is undisputed that the prison authorities have agreed to mail the appellant’s correspondence and to give assurance that it has been posted.

The district court held that: “The control of mail to and from prisons is a necessary adjunct to penal administration. McCloskey v. [State of] Maryland, 337 F.2d 72 (4 Cir., 1964). Only if rules or regulations prohibit or unduly hinder a prisoner’s efforts to secure relief from illegal detention or treatment would a federal court be justified in looking into aspects of prison administration relating to the use of the mails. It is clear from Petitioner’s allegations that he is not prohibited nor unduly hindered in seeking relief from alleged wrongs. * * * ”

We find no error in the judgment of the district court. See Labat v. McKeithen, 5 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 757; Lee v. Tahash, 8 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 970; Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 483; Ex parte Wilson, D.C.E.D.S.C., 1964, 235 F.Supp. 988.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial of injunctive relief to a Florida State convict.

The appellant is an inmate of the Florida State Prison at Raiford. He petitioned the district court for an injunction to obtain the right to have his mail relating to legal proceedings sent “postage prepaid by certified mail — return receipt requested”. It is undisputed that the prison authorities have agreed to mail the appellant’s correspondence and to give assurance that it has been posted.

The district court held that: “The control of mail to and from prisons is a necessary adjunct to penal administration. McCloskey v. [State of] Maryland, 337 F.2d 72 (4 Cir., 1964). Only if rules or regulations prohibit or unduly hinder a prisoner’s efforts to secure relief from illegal detention or treatment would a federal court be justified in looking into aspects of prison administration relating to the use of the mails. It is clear from Petitioner’s allegations that he is not prohibited nor unduly hindered in seeking relief from alleged wrongs. * * * ”

We find no error in the judgment of the district court. See Labat v. McKeithen, 5 Cir., 1966, 361 F.2d 757; Lee v. Tahash, 8 Cir., 1965, 352 F.2d 970; Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 483; Ex parte Wilson, D.C.E.D.S.C., 1964, 235 F.Supp. 988.

The judgment is affirmed.

Leon G. Schack v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 391 F.2d 608 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

391 F.2d 608 (Leon G. Schack v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related