Lundy v. Osborn, 76-4326
| Decision Date | 11 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-4326,76-4326 |
| Parties | Ronald Royce LUNDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. A. OSBORN, Warden FCI, Respondent-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph L. Perkins, Marshall, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.
Roby Hadden, U. S. Atty., Hal B. Cameron, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., Joseph F. Ciolino, Atty., Richard L. Thornburgh, Asst. Atty. Gen., George W. Calhoun, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Royce Lundy appeals from the district court's dismissal for writ of habeas corpus. Finding no merit in his contentions, we affirm.
Lundy filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 29, 1976, while he was a prisoner at the federal minimum security prison in Texarkana, Texas. Pending transfer to another federal institution, Lundy had been placed in segregation on July 21, 1976. In his petition, he alleged that his placement in segregation violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment and that the proposed transfer violated his Fifth Amendment rights because the decision to transfer him had been made without a due process hearing. Lundy had sought no administrative relief as provided for in Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 2001.6A.
On October 31, 1976, the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied habeas corpus relief. The court found that Lundy had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Ross v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 116, and further, that the subject matter of the suit was rendered moot when Lundy was transferred prior to the respondents filing their answer.
The lower court's decision dismissing the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. In the administration of federal prisoners, primary responsibility for supervision is delegated by statute to the Bureau of Prisons under the direction of the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001 and 4042. Under that authority, the Bureau has promulgated rules and regulations for the proper administration of the various prisons and has established effective means to review actions taken by local prison officials. In line with these regulations, grievances of prisoners concerning prison administration should be presented to the Bureau through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorman v. Simpson
...v. United States Parole Commission, 651 F.2d 1083 (5th Cir. 1981); Landrum v. Warden, 623 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980); Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1977); Meagher v. Dugger, 737 F.Supp. 641 Treating this as a case seeking habeas relief, there has been no showing that Plaintiff......
-
Palomino v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Civ.A. H-05-2659.
...F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534, 534-35 (5th Cir.1977) ("[G]rievances of prisoners concerning prison administration should be presented to the Bureau [of Prisons] through the a......
-
United States v. Gorney
... ... case.” (quoting Lundy v. Osborn , 555 F.2d 534, ... 534-35 (5th Cir. 1977))) ... Thus, ... ...
-
Vega v. Bergami
...may seek relief in federal court only after he has exhausted all levels of the administrative review process. See Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534, 535 (5th Cir. 1977) ("Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case."). "Excep......