Wolf v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

• Decision Date: 08 August 1991
• Docket Number: No. 91-5398,91-5398
• Citation: 946 F.2d 896
• Parties: NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. George Paul WOLF III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Michael Quinlan, Director, Gil Ingram, Regional Director, Bill Story, Warden; DOES, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 896

946 F.2d 896

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

George Paul WOLF III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Michael Quinlan, Director, Gil

Ingram, Regional Director, Bill Story, Warden;

DOES, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 91-5398.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 1991.

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and TODD, District Judge. ^*

ORDER

George Paul Wolf III, a former federal prisoner who is proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order and judgment dismissing his "omnibus motion" for relief filed, in part, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Wolf sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau's director and regional director, the warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Ashland (FCI-Ashland), and an unspecified number of "Does." Wolf alleged that his scheduled parole release date was rescinded through the use of false and misleading prison incident reports and that, as a result, his release from prison was wrongly delayed by at least 12 months. He further alleged that FCI-Ashland is a testing site for NASA and various federal intelligence agencies which have installed an extraordinarily sophisticated and comprehensive system of hidden cameras and microphones which impermissibly invades the inmates' privacy but which allegedly recorded all of the challenged incidents. Wolf consequently sought an on-site inspection of the hidden eavesdropping apparatus, an order compelling the defendants to release the alleged videotapes of the incidents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a ruling allowing access to the prison videotapes by the press and public, and compensatory and punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1984.

A magistrate judge issued a report on January 25, 1991 in which she recommended that Wolf's petition for habeas corpus be denied because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. She further found that Wolf had never requested the videotapes under the FOIA, that he had no standing to seek press access to the alleged videotapes, and that the court had no jurisdiction to grant compensatory or punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1984. Finally, the magistrate judge found Wolf's factual scenario and allegations concerning the pervasive high-tech...