438 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1971), 31134, Sanders v. United States

Docket Nº31134.
Citation438 F.2d 918
Party NameRoland Mike SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Case DateFebruary 03, 1971
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 918

438 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1971)

Roland Mike SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 31134.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 3, 1971

Roland Mike Sanders, pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Allen I. Hirsch, Richard H. Still, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied the appellant's petition in the nature of mandamus and he has appealed. The lack of validity of appellant's contentions is well demonstrated in the order appealed from, which is appended to this opinion. The ruling below is affirmed. 1

Affirmed.

APPENDIX

United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division Roland Mike Sanders versus Civil Action No. 13,893 United States of America

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, alleges inter alia that he has received improper medical and dental care, and that the prison authorities have abused their discretion with regard to discipline on several occasions. The government has responded to the court's order to show cause, and petitioner has traversed said response by further elucidating the facts in the petition. For the following reasons, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is hereby denied.

Basically, the responsibility over control and management of federal prisoners, including the discipline of inmates, is in the hands of the Attorney General and not subject to judicial review unless exercised arbitrarily or capriciously by prison officials. Graham v. Willingham, 384 F.2d 367 (10th Cir. 1967). Penitentiary authorities have wide discretionary powers in their dealings with prisoners,

Page 919

Thompson v. Blackwell, 374 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1967); Singleton v. Bosshard, 396 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1968). While the courts are reluctant to interfere in the internal operations and administration of the prison system, O'Brien v. Blackwell, 421 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1970); Tabor v. Hardwick, 224 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1955), in cases where there is a clear abuse of said discretion, the courts will intervene in behalf of the prisoner. See Schack v. Florida, 391 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1968); Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966). This showing by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial