U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1954

Banning v. Looney, Warden

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided June 25, 1954 · Phillips, Huxman, Pickett

213 F.2d 771; 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4709 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ralph M. Clarke, Denver, Colo., for appellant., Milton P. Beach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oskaloosa, Kan. (William C. Farmer, U. S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Hudson v. McMillian (Supreme Court of the United States 1992)
Ramos v. Lamm (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1980)
Oscar Bethea v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, James Townsend v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary (10th Cir. 1969)
Wright v. Raines (District Court, D. Kansas 1978)
Levier v. State (Kan. 1972)
Dreyer v. Jalet (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
Fisher v. Turner (District Court, D. Utah 1972)
State v. McCray (Md. 1972)
Inmates of Milwaukee County Jail v. Petersen (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 1971)
Captain Howard Brett Levy v. Colonel Wilbur Dillon, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1969)
Clarence R. Edwards v. John B. Duncan, D.C. Commissioner (4th Cir. 1966)
Fussa v. Taylor (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1958)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is confined under judgment of conviction in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. In substance his complaint in this proceeding is that his constitutional rights are being violated by the prison authorities, in that he is not permitted to process directly with the U. S. Patent Office an alleged invention which he claims to have developed. He complains that the prison rules and regulations require him to process the matter first through the office of Director of Bureau of Prisons. He also asked the trial court to inquire into his attempted escape record at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and to compel the prison authorities there to remove the “infamous lie” from his record.

Courts are without power to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations. Neither have we power to inquire with respect to the prisoner’s detention in the Lewisburg Prison. No authorities are needed to support those statements. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.