Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

350 F.2d 296

Docket No. 8159.

Lawrence C. Pope v. Loren E. Daggett and A. D. Lavoie

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

August 12, 1965.

Rehearing Denied September 16, 1965.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1965-08-12

2 counsel of record

Relies on Ortega v. Ragen · Carter v. United States · Lyle v. Eidson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1965-08-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009

11 federal appellate · 3 district ·

10019651970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

James A. Clark, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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.

¶2

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.

¶3

Affirmed.

/350/f2d/296 · .json · Public domain