Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

430 F.2d 882

Docket No. 28935

Paden v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 11, 1970.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-08-11

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1985 · most notably Buise v. Hudkins (1978), Willis v. Ciccone (1974)

23 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““[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 administration channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Light v. United States, Mitchell v. Beaubouef

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4001

Relies on Granville v. Hunt · Green v. United States · Beard v. Lee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-08-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.

¶2*883John R. Paden, pro se.

¶3John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

¶4Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Appellant, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, petitioned the district court for an order directing the prison administrators to permit the prisoners to form a black culture organization and to allow them to use prison facilities for organizational activities. Because appellant did not attempt to obtain review of his complaint through the available administrative channels, the district court denied the petition. We affirm.1

¶7 In his complaint the appellant asserts that he has been deprived of fundamental constitutional rights and implies an abuse of discretion by the prison administrators who denied his request. However, in 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 administration channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case. Quick v. Thompkins, 425 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1970); Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969); Hess v. Blackwell, 409 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1968); Beard v. Lee, 396 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968).

¶8Since appellant should have made use of available administrative channels before bringing this request to the court, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

/430/f2d/882 · .json · Public domain