NORWOOD E. JONES AND WILLIAM SCOTT WINANS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN A. CARLSON, DIRECTOR U. S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-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 inmates must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of prison administration grievances.
Two inmates appealed the dismissal of their action concerning alleged interference with their correspondence. The district court dismissed their suit.…
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 Prisoner Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
. See Thompson v. U. S. Prison Industries, 5 Cir. 1974, 492 F. 2d 1082 ; Ross v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F. 2d 116 .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardwick v. Ault, 517 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Mitchell v. Beaubouef, 581 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1982)
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
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960)
- Paden v. United States, 430 F.2d 882 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Waddell v. Alldredge, 480 F.2d 1078 (3d Cir. 1973)
- Thompson v. United States, 492 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Ross v. Henderson, 491 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Haywood Williams, Jr. v. United States, 431 F.2d 873 (5th Cir. 1970)