U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1965

Lawrence C. Pope v. Loren E. Daggett and A. D. Lavoie

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided September 16, 1965 · Breitenstein, Lewis, Per Curiam, Phillips

350 F.2d 296 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

James A. Clark, Denver, Colo., for appellant., Benjamin E. Franklin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., was with him on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Procunier v. Navarette (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
Procunier v. Martinez (Supreme Court of the United States 1974)
O'Mara v. Dionne, et al. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2009)
Sledge v. Carlson (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1975)
Mitchell v. Carlson (District Court, D. Kansas 1975)
Stephen Luther Evans v. R. I. Moseley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas (10th Cir. 1972)
Ricky Lee Wilkerson v. Warden of U. S. Reformatory, El Reno, Oklahoma (10th Cir. 1972)
James T. Levier v. Mr. Robert N. Woodson, Penal Director (10th Cir. 1971)
Eddie David Cox v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas (10th Cir. 1967)
Gene Alvin Krupnick v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Gene Alvin Krupnick v. Kansas State Prison (10th Cir. 1966)
Roberts v. Pepersack (District Court, D. Maryland 1966)

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 Pope, an inmate of Leavenworth penitentiary serving a 25-year sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, brought this action against prison officials for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to establish his right to mail a letter to the chief probation officer at San Antonio, Texas, relating to the preparation of a presentence report and the delivery of that report to the sentencing judge. The district court sustained a motion to dismiss.

The letter sought information for use in a contemplated, but unfiled, motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The appellee officials determined that the letter was unmailable under prison regulations. Although we see no harm in the letter *297 and are doubtful of the wisdom of the denial of the mailing privilege, we do not have the power through the injunctive process to supervise the conduct of a federal penitentiary or its discipline. 1 That power lies in the Attorney General and the Bureau of Prisons. 2 Control over a prisoner’s mail is basically an administrative function. 3 The action taken here does not violate any constitutional right of the prisoner. If the information sought by the prisoner is available, means exist to obtain it in a § 2255 application.

Affirmed.

. Dayton v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 108, 109, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 888, 70 S.Ct. 184, 94 L.Ed. 545.

. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001 and 4042.

See Carter v. United States, 10 Cir., 333 F.2d 354, 355.

. Ortega v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 216 F.2d 561, 562.

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