Green v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 13224.,13224. |
| Citation | 283 F.2d 687 |
| Parties | David GREEN, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
David Green, appellant, pro se.
Daniel H. Jenkins, U. S. Atty., James S. Palermo, Asst. U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in his petition in this cause asked the district court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Bureau of Prisons and the Lewisburg Warden "commanding them, together to show cause for denial of corresponding under the mailing privilege of the said penitentiary and the provisions of the said article Article 1 of the United States Constitution forthwith before the Court or officer granting the said writ." He alleged that he had been denied the privilege of placing a minister of his faith "on his regular mailing list for further instructions and future guidance."
The district court, properly interpreting the petition as one asking for relief in the nature of mandamus, held:
"In the United States District Courts mandamus or its equivalent is of an ancillary nature only, except in the District of Columbia, and an original proceeding will not lie."
That decision is entirely sound. Truth Seeker Co. v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 54; Fussa v. Taylor, D.C., M.D.Pa.1958, 168 F.Supp. 302.
In addition, appellant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Under the regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Prisons, there is available to all prisoners, the right of the "Prisoner's Mail Box." This procedure sets up an effective means of review of actions of local prison authorities. See Lowe v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa.1948, 77 F.Supp. 303, 305.
As stated in the Mail Regulations, Section g, rev. February 23, 1944:
This case presents an alleged situation in which administrative review should have been utilized. Appellant asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. Arnold
...doctrine in mandamus proceedings brought by federal prisoners. Waddell v. Alldredge, 3 Cir., 480 F.2d 1078 (1973), and Green v. United States, 3 Cir., 283 F.2d 687 (1960). Other circuits are in accord. Burnett v. United States Board of Parole, 491 F.2d 966 (5th Cir.1974); Smoake v. Willingh......
-
Willis v. Ciccone
...Cir. 1970); Light v. United States, 430 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1970); Quick v. Thompkins, 425 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1970); Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960). The extraordinary nature of the writ requires this. It should not be resorted to until other more conventional remedies ha......
-
Kochie v. Norton, Civ. A. No. B-469
...remedy was Lowe v. Hiatt, 77 F. Supp. 303 (M.D.Pa.1948). That decision and its suggested remedy were relied upon in Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960). Subsequently, many decisions have rejected prisoners' complaints for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and cited ......
-
Muszalski, In re
...210; Waddell v. Alldredge, supra, 480 F.2d at pp. 1079--1080; Paden v. United States, 5 Cir., 430 F.2d 882, 883; Green v. United States, supra, 283 F.2d at pp. 688--689.) The many reasons for the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies are discussed in McKart v. United States, ......