Murphy v. SURGEON GENERAL, US PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
| Decision Date | 12 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. L-124. |
| Citation | 269 F. Supp. 227 |
| Parties | Robert B. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. SURGEON GENERAL, U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
There has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a designated motion, signed and verified by Robert B. Murphy, and an application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. Movant Murphy is a prisoner in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. On April 17, 1967, an order was filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia transferring this motion to the District of Kansas for adjudication.
The Court, after examining the papers so filed, finds it difficult to understand from the application the writ sought. The application was obviously prepared without the assistance of counsel, and the exact nature of petitioner's complaint and the relief sought are liberally interpreted.
The present application seeks an order from the United States District Court against the Surgeon General, U. S. Public Health Service, to show cause to why "the petitioner is being denied the benefit of medical discoveries of the last thirty-six months for the diagnosis and treatment of liver, thyroid, and cardiac disorders." The petitioner has not used the forms provided for habeas applications and seeks affirmative relief in the nature of mandamus.
The petitioner is not contesting the legality of his detention. Rather, it is clear, he complains in conclusionary fashion of various aspects of prison administration, largely having to do with the granting of "medical treatments in the area of internal medicine embraced as they relate to liver and cardiac disorders."
It is settled law that the control and management of federal penal institutions are vested in the Attorney General and absent arbitrary or capricious actions, or abuse of discretion, the courts will not intervene. See Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10 Cir., 1966). It is further generally recognized that prisoners must first exhaust their administrative remedies by applying directly to the Bureau of Prisons. Smoake v. Willingham, supra. The "prisoner's mailbox provides a means whereby an aggrieved prisoner may write directly, without inspection by institutional authorities, to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons." See Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3 Cir., 1960). This, or a similar procedure, ought to be exercised by a prisoner before appealing to the courts for relief.
Complaints of improper or inadequate medical care are particularly appropriate for reference to prison administrative channels. We think the requirement that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies may not be circumvented merely by the prisoner demanding the same special treatment that he might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bijeol v. Benson
...Cir. 1967); Smoake v. Willingham, 359 F.2d 386 (10th Cir. 1966); McNeal v. Taylor, 313 F.Supp. 200 (W.D.Okl.1970); Murphy v. Surgeon General, 269 F.Supp. 227 (D.Kan.1967). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4001 and § 4042, the Bureau of Prisons is delegated primary responsibility for the supervision ......
-
Rivera v. Toft, 72-1785.
...688 (W. D.Okl.1970), aff'd, 432 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1970); Owens v. Alldridge, 311 F. Supp. 667 (W.D.Okl.1970); Murphy v. Surgeon General, 269 F.Supp. 227 (D. Kan.1967). Upon docketing in this court, this case was assigned to the summary calendar, and the appellants were informed that we we......
-
Elkanich v. Alexander
...allegations particularly showing a clear breach of duty on the part of the prison administrators. Murphy v. Surgeon General United States Public Health Service, 269 F.Supp. 227 (D.C.Kan.1967). State prison regulations limiting the times and places in which inmates may engage in legal resear......
-
King v. Norton, Civ. No. B-348.
...This, or a similar procedure, ought to be exercised by a prisoner before appealing to the courts for relief." Murphy v. Surgeon General, 269 F.Supp. 227, 228 (D.Kan. 1967). However, exhaustion is unnecessary where the administrative remedy is inadequate. See McNeese v. Board of Educ., 373 U......