Reilly v. Hiatt

63 F. Supp. 477, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1723
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 6, 1945
Docket2446
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 63 F. Supp. 477 (Reilly v. Hiatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reilly v. Hiatt, 63 F. Supp. 477, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1723 (M.D. Pa. 1945).

Opinion

WATSON, District Judge.

On July 27, 1945, Joseph W. Reilly, hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”, forwarded to this Court a paper labeled a “Petition for Writ of Injunction”. The filing fee was not submitted with the paper and was not received until November 5, 1945 when petitioner accompanied the filing fee with a paper labeled “Amendment to Petition for Writ of Injunction”.

The petition alleges that petitioner is an inmate of the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, and that the Warden, respondent, illegally withheld or delayed the transmission of letters written by the petitioner. Petitioner also requests this Court to order respondent Hiatt to mail immediately three letters in particular.

This is in effect a request for an order abolishing the censorship of mail of prisoners. The withholding of mail is purely a matter of prison regulation within the administrative discretion of the warden of the penitentiary and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. United States v. Thompson, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 683.

This Court has no jurisdiction if the matter be treated as an effort to obtain a mandatory injunction. United States v. Rollnick, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 863; Jones v. Hiatt, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 68. Nor may this Court interfere with an administrative officer in a matter involving the exercise of his discretion not in connection with any matter now pending in this Court, nor auxiliary to or in aid of jurisdiction already existing. Hogan v. Hill, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 975, affirmed 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 1017.

Now, the petition of Joseph W. Reilly for an injunction mandatorily directing the respondent to mail certain letters, and prohibiting him from withholding future mail of the petitioner, is hereby denied.

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

Related

People v. Manganero
72 Misc. 2d 381 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1972)
Ervin Albert Haas v. United States
344 F.2d 56 (Eighth Circuit, 1965)
UNITED STATES Ex Rel. Thompson v. Fay
197 F. Supp. 855 (S.D. New York, 1961)
In Re Smigelski's Petition
185 F. Supp. 283 (D. New Jersey, 1960)
Mahaffey v. Day
3 Pa. D. & C.2d 721 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1955)
Commonwealth ex rel. Walden v. Brown
85 Pa. D. & C. 581 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1953)
Adams v. Ellis
197 F.2d 483 (Fifth Circuit, 1952)
Walden v. Brown
83 Pa. D. & C. 407 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1952)
Feyerchak v. Hiatt
7 F.R.D. 726 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)
Rothstein v. Hiatt
70 F. Supp. 867 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 F. Supp. 477, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-hiatt-pamd-1945.