Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons

Fifth Circuit

Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons

495 F.2d 209, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8375

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 31, 1974·No. 209·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jones, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, and Winans, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action for injunction and other relief arising out of the alleged interference with their correspondence concerning pending litigation.

We deem it unnecessary to reach the merits of the ruling appealed since it appears that the appellants have not sought relief through the proper administrative channels before presenting their grievances for judicial review. As the Court stated in Paden v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 882, 883:

“[I]n the administration of federal prisons primary responsibility for supervision is delegated by statute to the Bureau of Prisons under the direction of the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. § 4001 and § 4042. Under that authority the Bureau has promulgated rules and regulations for the proper administration of the various prisons and has established effective means to review actions taken by local prison officials. Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960). In line with these regulations, grievances of prisoners concerning prison administration should be presented to the Bureau through the available administrati [ve] channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case.”

See also Waddell v. Alldredge, 3 Cir. 1973, 480 F.2d 1078; Ledesma v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1323; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 873.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the cause remanded with directions that the action be dismissed in order that the appellants may exhaust their administrative remedies in accordance with Bureau of Prisons policy statement 2001.6 (February 14, 1974) . 1

Vacated and remanded.

1

. See Thompson v. U. S. Prison Industries, 5 Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 1082 [1974]; Ross v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 116 [1974].

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

PER CURIAM:

Jones, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, and Winans, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action for injunction and other relief arising out of the alleged interference with their correspondence concerning pending litigation.

We deem it unnecessary to reach the merits of the ruling appealed since it appears that the appellants have not sought relief through the proper administrative channels before presenting their grievances for judicial review. As the Court stated in Paden v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 882, 883:

“[I]n the administration of federal prisons primary responsibility for supervision is delegated by statute to the Bureau of Prisons under the direction of the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. § 4001 and § 4042. Under that authority the Bureau has promulgated rules and regulations for the proper administration of the various prisons and has established effective means to review actions taken by local prison officials. Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960). In line with these regulations, grievances of prisoners concerning prison administration should be presented to the Bureau through the available administrati [ve] channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case.”

See also Waddell v. Alldredge, 3 Cir. 1973, 480 F.2d 1078; Ledesma v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1323; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 873.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the cause remanded with directions that the action be dismissed in order that the appellants may exhaust their administrative remedies in accordance with Bureau of Prisons policy statement 2001.6 (February 14, 1974) . 1

Vacated and remanded.

1

. See Thompson v. U. S. Prison Industries, 5 Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 1082 [1974]; Ross v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 116 [1974].

Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 495 F.2d 209, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8375 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

495 F.2d 209 (Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related