LAWRENCE C. POPE, APPELLANT,
v.
LOREN E. DAGGETT AND A. D. LAVOIE ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacks the power to supervise the conduct of a federal penitentiary or its discipline, including control over prisoner mail.
An inmate sought to mail a letter to a probation officer for information related to a potential motion. Prison officials deemed the letter unmailable …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Function cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Pope, an inmate of Leavenworth penitentiary serving a 25-year sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, brought this action against prison officials for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to establish his right to mail a letter to the chief probation officer at San Antonio, Texas, relating to the preparation of a presentence report and the delivery of that report to the sentencing judge. The district court sustained a motion to dismiss.
The letter sought information for use in a contemplated, but unfiled, motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellee officials determined that the letter was unmailable under prison regulations. Although we see no harm in the letter and are doubtful of the wisdom of the denial of the mailing privilege, we do not have the power through the injunctive process to supervise the conduct of a federal penitentiary or its discipline.1 That power lies in the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons.2 Control over a prisoner’s mail is basically an administrative function.3 The action taken here does not violate any constitutional right of the prisoner. If the information sought by the prisoner is available, means exist to obtain it in a § 2255 application.
Affirmed.
. Dayton v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 176 F. 2d 108, 109, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 888, 70 S.Ct. 184, 94 L.Ed. 545.
. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001 and 4042.
See Carter v. United States, 10 Cir., 333 F. 2d 354, 355.
. Ortega v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 216 F. 2d 561, 562.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1974)
-
Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1978)
-
Evans v. Moseley, 455 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. United States, 333 F.2d 354 (10th Cir. 1964)
- Ortega v. Ragen, 216 F.2d 561 (7th Cir. 1954)
- Dayton v. Hunter, 176 F.2d 108 (10th Cir. 1949)
- Lyle v. Eidson, 338 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1949)
- Monaghan v. Burke, 338 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1949)