Hess v. Blackwell, 25643.

• Citation: 409 F.2d 362
• Decision Date: 21 March 1969
• Docket Number: No. 25643.,25643.
• Parties: Donald K. HESS, Appellant, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

409 F.2d 362 (1969)

Donald K. HESS, Appellant, v. Olin G. BLACKWELL, Warden, et al., Appellees.

No. 25643.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 21, 1969.

Donald K. Hess, pro se.

Theodore E. Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant is an inmate of the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia. He filed in the court below a "Motion for Restraining Order" seeking to have prohibited the alleged use by prison guards of a "fluoroscopic and stationary X-ray machine" upon himself and other prisoners in the conduct of searches for contraband material when such prisoners enter or leave the institution. He asserted that the machine is negligently used by untrained personnel and causes or is likely to cause radiation burns and other injuries.

The trial court on October 13, 1967, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and later, on November 13, 1967, denied a "motion to renew (sic) judgment". A later "motion to reinstate" was denied December 7, 1967. This appeal followed.

The "motion to renew" judgment contained the following allegations:

"In the court\'s order, it is stated relief must be through administrative channels. The petitioner avers he has wrote two letters in relation to the above, to the following: Attorney General, Mr. Ramsey Clark, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., without a reply."

This was an allegation of at least an attempt to secure relief administratively. The "motion to renew" also made clear that the appellant based his application upon the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".

Apparently not brought to the attention of the district court was a purported letter dated May 25, 1967, from the appellant-petitioner to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons complaining of searches by use of the hospital x-ray machine and the danger of overexposure to radiation. A copy of this letter appears as an appendix to the appellant's brief in this Court. The brief asserts that appellant's complaints were never answered. If such a letter was sent, it also indicates an attempt to pursue the appellant's complaint through administrative channels.

We agree with the district court that since the management and regulation of federal penal correctional institutions is by statute delegated to the Bureau of Prisons under the direction of the Attorney General^* resort must be had in the first instance to these officials. Green v. United States, 3 Cir. 1960, 283 F.2d 687.

But, if the appellant's assertions are true, he had sought relief through administrative channels before bringing his complaint into the district court. Until the district court tests these allegations by proof at a plenary hearing, it is impossible to determine whether or not administrative remedies have been exhausted. Unlikely as it may appear that responsible prison officials permit the use of potentially dangerous equipment, the appellant is entitled to a day in court to try to prove the truth of his allegations provided available administrative remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, we reverse and direct that the district court vacate its prior judgment, and determine whether or not available administrative remedies have been exhausted. If so, that court should then conduct an evidentiary hearing and make appropriate findings with respect to appellant's allegations of deprivation of Eighth Amendment rights.

Reversed and remanded.

BREWSTER, District Judge (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

The record in this case in the court below consisted only of three motions¹ and a notice of appeal filed by appellant and of the court's orders in regard thereto. Each time appellant filed a motion, the court was of the opinion that it was apparent from the face thereof that appellant was not entitled to the relief sought, and entered an order denying it without an evidentiary hearing.² The appeal in forma pauperis came to this Court on appellant's pleadings and notice of appeal³ and the three orders of the trial court dated October 13, November 13 and December 7, 1967, respectively. All papers filed by appellant in the trial court, as well as his briefs here, appear to have been prepared without legal help. The summary of his alleged facts and claims that follows is taken from those instruments filed by him, some of it by quotation.

At the time in question, appellant was a convict in the federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia. He was also facing trial in the United States District Court in that city on a charge of attempt to escape from federal custody. It was the policy of the institution to require "inmates listed as security risk" to pass before a machine as they left from or returned to the prison during periods they were attending court on writs, either as defendants or as witnesses, for the purpose of detecting any weapons or other contraband articles concealed on their persons. The sixteen inmates listed as security risks at the time included the appellant and two men he intended to call as witnesses in his behalf in his pending criminal case. The penitentiary officials regarded the device in issue as a fluoroscope machine. The appellant, however, after having read several magazine articles "concerning X-ray Exposure", decided that the machine was "a stationary high power X-ray, death device." He claimed that the personnel using it was untrained in taking X-rays, and that the repeated use of it was likely to cause radiation burns and other injuries. He expected to be subjected to check by the machine as he went to and from court for his trial. His two prospective witnesses were refusing to go to court for him on account of their fear of the machine. There was no allegation that he had applied for any process to compel their attendance.

The piecemeal pattern which is so common when pleadings are prepared by convicts resulted in three stages of proceedings in the trial court: (1) "Motion for a Restraining Order" and a court order dated October 13, 1967 denying it. (2) "Motion to Renew Judgment" and a court order of November 13, 1967 refusing it. (3) "Motion to Reinstate and/or Notice of Appeal"⁴ and a court order of December 7, 1967 overruling the motion except for the portion requesting leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The trial court denied each of the motions on the ground that it failed to show that the appellant's administrative remedies had been exhausted.⁵

The majority opinion agrees that the law required the appellant to allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies before he could maintain this suit attacking the management and regulation of the institution where he was confined. It says, however, that "if appellant's assertions are true, he had sought relief through administrative channels before bringing his complaint into the district court. * * *" (Emphasis supplied). For that ground to be valid, the record from the court below must show not only that appellant had sought administrative relief, but that he did so within sufficient time before the filing of this action to give the authorities a reasonable opportunity to act upon his complaint. In my opinion, that record shows neither requirement.

The correctness of the denial of the "Motion for a Restraining Order" is not questioned, as that motion contained no reference to any effort to get administrative relief through the Attorney General or the Bureau of Prisons. The only mention whatever in any part of the record in the court below of any contact by the appellant with such authorities appears in the following paragraph of the first motion for new trial, filed after the entry of the order of October 13, 1967: "In the Court's order it is stated relief must be through administrative channels. The petitioner avers he has wrote two letters in relation to the above, to the following: Attorney General, Mr. Ramsey Clark, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., without a reply."

This allegation, when taken in context, is not sufficient to discharge appellant's burden of showing affirmatively that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. There is no way to tell from such allegation what his complaint to the administrative authorities was, whether "in relation to the above" refers to the preceding sentence or to all of the motion preceding the statement.⁶ Neither construction would satisfy the requirement laid down in Vida v. Cage, 6 Cir., 385 F. 2d 408 (1967), that petitioner's pleadings must affirmatively show that the complaint made to the administrative authorities was the same as that set forth in his court action. Any judge who has served on the federal bench would know the reason for that rule after seeing the way convicts juggle the grounds set out in a series of instruments prepared for themselves or for fellow prisoners. In addition, the Prisoners' Mail Box Regulation discussed in footnote 5 says that all inmates may use the box to write the Attorney General, The Bureau of Prisons, and certain other listed officials "regarding any problem of importance which they believe cannot be solved through the assistance of institutional personnel or by utilizing regular mail channels." The prison system could not function if it had to investigate obviously meritless protests of the many malcontents and misfits among its inmates. A charge ought to have some semblance of reality before it could be expected to provoke action. A complaint based on the weird gobbledygook about the "redhot iron test", etc., contained in "the above" to which the allegation in question referred could hardly be classed as a "problem of importance" in the present setting. I cannot see enough semblance of merit in it to call for administrative action.

Even if appellant's allegations in his motion for new trial were otherwise sufficient, they would still be inadequate for...