LEON G. SCHACK, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 prison authorities are not required to provide specific mail services like certified mail for inmate legal correspondence.
A Florida State Prison inmate petitioned for an injunction to require prison authorities to send his legal mail postage prepaid by certified mail with…
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 Prison Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nazareth Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
McCRAY v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1976)
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
- LEE v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965)
- McCLOSKEY v. State OF Md., 337 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 1964)
- Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1952)
- Labat v. The Honorable John J. McKEITHEN, 361 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1966)