Durham v. Blackwell, 26897.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 26897.,26897. |
| Citation | 409 F.2d 838 |
| Parties | James R. DURHAM, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James R. Durham, Jr., pro se.
Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of the Court, this case has been placed on the summary calendar for disposition without oral argument.1
Appellant sought an injunction in the district court against the warden of the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta. His complaint was that the warden denied him the right of access to the courts through action embraced in the following notice which appeared in the prison newspaper:
The district court denied injunctive relief, pointing out that the court had considered and would continue to consider handwritten petitions and supporting material from prison inmates.
Appellant's argument narrows to two contentions. First, he urges, based on Griffin v. Illinois, 1956, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, that those prisoners having the wherewithal would file typed pleadings and therefore an indigent prisoner should be able to do likewise. Second, the right of an indigent prisoner would be impeded because of the court not being able to read handwritten material.
The principle of law here involved is the right of access of a prison inmate to the courts. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (Feb. 24, 1969); Long v. District Court, 1966, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290; Smith v. Bennett, 1961, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39. Appellant was not denied access to the courts by the regulation in question nor was he entitled to injunctive relief. We do not believe that Griffin v. Illinois, supra, can be extended to such length as appellant advocates, and we are certain that a prisoner can proceed in handwritten form. In fact, it appears that this is the fourth in a series of suits filed by appellant.
Affirmed.
1 In order to establish a docket control procedure, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bijeol v. Benson
...constitutional right to personally own a typewriter. See e. g., Tarleton v. Henderson, 467 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1972) and Durham v. Blackwell, 409 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1969). As to plaintiff Bijeol's other claims, this Court will not interfere with the responsibility which rests with the Bureau......
-
Eisenhardt v. Britton, 73-1279 Summary Calendar.
...Cruz v. Hauck, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 475. But the availability of a typewriter is not necessary for judicial review. Durham v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 838; Tarlton v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 200; Stubblefield v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 26; Sprouse v. Moore & H......
-
Sprouse v. Moore, 72-3426 Summary Calendar.
...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 protect......
-
Williams v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISON, 29831.
...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 mo......