LEVON ARNEZ PYLES, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NORMAN A. CARLSON, 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 some of the prisoner's claims were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for stating no cognizable claim, while others were improperly dismissed and require further development of the record.
A federal prisoner sued prison officials alleging illegal mail interference and denial of access to courts. The district court granted summary judgmen…
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 Legal Mail cases and more on FLexlaw
GODBOLD, Chief Judge:
Pyles, a federal prisoner, filed suit in district court against prison officials. The district court dismissed Pyles’ first complaint as overbroad, with leave to amend. Pyles’ amended complaint charged prison officials with illegally interfering with his mail and impeding his access to the courts and sought monetary and injunctive relief. Based on affidavits submitted by the defendants the district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
I. Allegations Properly Dismissed on Motion for Summary Judgment
Two of Pyles’ allegations — that defendants illegally opened a newsletter entitled “Sanity Now” and a letter from John Abt, an attorney — were properly dismissed because Pyles failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures. Federal prisoners are generally required to exhaust administrative remedies available to them. See Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F. 2d 1386, 1391-92 (11th Cir.1982); Lane v. Hanberry, 593 F. 2d 648, 649 (5th Cir.1979); Jones v. Carlson, 495 F. 2d 209, 210 (5th Cir.1974); Thompson v. U.S., 492 F. 2d 1082, 1084 (5th Cir.1974).
Other complaints were properly dismissed because they state no cognizable ground for relief: failure to supply Pyles franked envelopes for his legal mail; initial refusal of a secretary to notarize a legal document; insufficiency of the prison legal aid program.
II. Allegations Improperly Dismissed
Pyles alleges that defendants are engaged in a systematic effort to deny him adequate access to the courts. Some of the alleged incidents on which Pyles relies involve disputed issues of material fact; others raise legal issues that must be decided on a more developed record:
(1) That prison officials intentionally opened legal mail (a letter sent Pyles by the ACLU). Defendants say it was opened by accident. See Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F. 2d 462 (5th Cir.1976).
(2) That prison officials opened a box containing a trial transcript sent by Pyles’ attorney. Defendants say it was not adequately identified as legal mail.
(3) That defendants intentionally delayed delivery of the trial transcript to Pyles.
(4) That legal materials available to Pyles in solitary confinement were so inadequate as to deny access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F. 2d 1332, 1337 (5th Cir.1975); Cruz v. Hauck, 627 F. 2d 710 (5th Cir.1980).
(5) That a non-lawyer who claimed to be a representative of the ACLU was improperly denied permission to see Pyles.
(6) That at a time when Pyles was under an imminent court deadline to file a brief the warden required him to work and thereby denied him use of the prison library with intention to frustrate Pyles’ exercise of legal rights.
(7) That letters from Pyles to the media were destroyed.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caraballo-Sandoval v. R.E. Honsted, 35 F.3d 521 (11th Cir. 1994)…general counsel. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. Caraballo-Sandoval neglected to apply for any administrative remedy after his placement in dry cell at the Marianna FCI. Thus, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies for that incident. Pyles v. Carlson, 698 F. 2d 1131, 1132 (11th Cir.1983) (Generally, federal prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit against prison officials); but see McCarthy v. Madigan, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 1088-90, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (A prisoner need not exh…
-
Carter v. Thompson, 808 F. Supp. 1548 (M.D. Fla. 1992)…1369. Moreover, summary judgment should be denied when some of the alleged incidents on which Plaintiff relies involve disputed issues of fact, while others raise legal issues that must be decided on a more developed record. Pyles v. Carlson, 698 F.2d 1131, 1133 (11th Cir.1983). Further, it is clear that “[wjhere an issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility, summary judgment is not appropriate.” 12 C. Wrig…
-
Samuel J.M. Davis, Jr. v. P.W. Keohane, 835 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1987)…e or mandatory relief must exhaust administrative remedy provided in regulations promulgated by Director of Bureau of Prisons prior to seeking relief in district court regardless of whether prisoner also asserts claim for damages); Pyles v. Carlson, 698 F. 2d 1131 (11th Cir.1983) (federal prisoner’s allegations that officials opened newsletter and letter from attorney were properly dismissed where prisoner failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures); Jones v. Carlson, 495 F. 2d 209 (5th Cir.1974) (inmates…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1977)
- McCRAY v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Cruz v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck, 627 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Kyle v. Hanberry, 677 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Thompson v. United States, 492 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Carlson, 495 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Lane v. Hanberry, 593 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1979)