Morrison v. Cavell

W.D. Pennsylvania

Morrison v. Cavell

154 F. Supp. 840, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3174

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 24, 1957

DocketNo. 2057

StatusPublished

This text of 154 F. Supp. 840 (Morrison v. Cavell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morrison v. Cavell, 154 F. Supp. 840, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3174 (W.D. Pa. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus in which the petitioner, Karl E. Morrison, an inmate of the Western State Penitentiary, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, contends that he is being denied rights given to him under the Constitution of the United States in that the outgoing and incoming mail of the petitioner is intercepted.

Petitioner presents the petition in forma pauperis and without the aid of legal counsel, and assuming all facts to be true which are set forth in the petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court.

Under the Constitution of the United States, more particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, the government of the United States is not concerned with, nor has it power to control or regulate, the internal discipline of the penal institutions of its constituent states, and all such powers are reserved to the individual states. Siegel v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 785, certiorari denied 339 U.S, 990, 70 S.Ct. 1015, 94 L.Ed. 1391, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 847, 71 S.Ct. 12, 95 L.Ed. 621; United States v. Jones, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 785.

The petition for writ of mandamus is refused and an appropriate order is entered.

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

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus in which the petitioner, Karl E. Morrison, an inmate of the Western State Penitentiary, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, contends that he is being denied rights given to him under the Constitution of the United States in that the outgoing and incoming mail of the petitioner is intercepted.

Petitioner presents the petition in forma pauperis and without the aid of legal counsel, and assuming all facts to be true which are set forth in the petition for writ of mandamus, the petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court.

Under the Constitution of the United States, more particularly the Fourteenth Amendment, the government of the United States is not concerned with, nor has it power to control or regulate, the internal discipline of the penal institutions of its constituent states, and all such powers are reserved to the individual states. Siegel v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 785, certiorari denied 339 U.S, 990, 70 S.Ct. 1015, 94 L.Ed. 1391, rehearing denied 340 U.S. 847, 71 S.Ct. 12, 95 L.Ed. 621; United States v. Jones, 5 Cir., 207 F.2d 785.

The petition for writ of mandamus is refused and an appropriate order is entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F. Supp. 840, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-cavell-pawd-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack