Williams v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISON, 29831.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 29831.,29831. |
| Parties | Haywood WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISON, and Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, Atlanta Federal Prison, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Haywood Williams, Jr., pro se.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, filed his petition in the district court complaining of certain prison regulations. The court below, treating the petition as one for habeas corpus, denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.1
Appellant, bringing this action on behalf of himself and all other prisoners similarly situated, claims that the prison prohibition against the inmate use of typewriters in the drafting of their pro se petitions is a denial of free access to the courts. We find no merit in this contention, having specifically rejected it in Durham v. Blackwell, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 838.
Appellant further argues that the Atlanta Penitentiary's policy which forbids inmate assistance in the preparation of pro se motions and writs, "except in unusual cases, and then only with special written authorization,"2 is violative of the Supreme Court's mandate set forth in Johnson v. Avery, 1969, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718.
Johnson v. Avery, supra, held that a prison regulation prohibiting inmate assistance in the drafting of pro se legal papers constituted a deprivation of due process of law, where no "reasonable alternative" was available to furnish legal advice. That court noted that the existence of programs wherein legal aid is provided to prisoners by law students "indicates that techniques are available to provide alternatives."
Appellant alleges that the legal services which Emory University Law School renders to the prisoners at the Atlanta Penitentiary is not a "reasonable alternative" to inmate assistance since the law school is overwhelmed with cases, and therefore it is unable to act upon some prisoners' requests for as long as eighteen months.
We believe that an eighteen-month delay is an unreasonable length of time for a prisoner to wait in order to file a petition for post-conviction relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides for speedy adjudication of the merits of habeas corpus cases.
The district court, however, failed to make any findings relative to the veracity of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevenson v. Reed
...404 U.S. 15, 92 S.Ct. 250, 30 L.Ed.2d 142 (1971); Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, 664 (5 Cir. 1971); Williams v. United States Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 433 F.2d 958, 959 (5 Cir. 1970); Wainwright v. Coonts, supra; Battle v. Anderson, 376 F.Supp. 402, 426-27 (E.D.Okl.1974); United S......
-
Noorlander v. Ciccone, 73-1532.
...government with respect to prisoners incarcerated in federal correction institutions. See, e. g., Williams v. United States Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Prison, 433 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1970); Ayers v. Ciccone, 303 F.Supp. 637 Noorlander advances two independent legal bases in support of his a......
-
Sandoval v. Craven
... ... Justice Douglas dissenting. 386 U.S. 948, 87 S.Ct. 985, ... ...
-
McDonnell v. Wolff
...done, no rights of the inmates are infringed. There is no right to the individual use of a typewriter. Williams v. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 433 F.2d 958 5th Cir. 6. The plaintiff contends that because there are reprisals by the prison officials to those inmate......