Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

476 F.2d 995

Docket No. 72-3426 Summary Calendar.a

Sprouse v. Moore

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1973-04-24

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1973

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Tarlton v. Henderson · Durham v. Blackwell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1973-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Irby Sprouse, Jr., pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.

Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Appellant, an inmate of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, appeals from the denial by the United States District Court of his petition for mandamus to force the prison authorities to allow him the use of typewriters for legal correspondence and matters other than formal motions to the courts. We affirm.

¶3

"It is well established that an inmate has no federally protected right to the use of typewriters to prepare legal writs. Williams v. United States Department of Justice, 5th Cir., 1970, 433 F.2d 958; Durham v. Blackwell, 5th Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 838; see also Tarlton v. Henderson, 5th Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 200. It follows, therefore, that an inmate has no federally protected right to use typewriters for correspondence, whether personal or legal."

¶4

Affirmed.

/476/f2d/995 · .json · Public domain