Gary Michael Quick v. J. F. Thompkins, Etc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Leslie D. Willis v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone (8th Cir. 1974)
- Thompson v. United States, Federal Prison Industries (5th Cir. 1974)
- Holland v. Oliver (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1972)
- John Reuben Paden v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
- Michael A. Light v. United States (5th Cir. 1970)
- Harry W. Theriault v. U. S. A., Ex Rel., State of Mississippi, J. Edgar Hoover, Fbi Director Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary (5th Cir. 1970)
- Harry W. Theriault v. U.S.A., Ex Rel., State of Mississippi, J. Edgar Hoover, Fbi Director Olin G. Blackwell, Warden, U.S. Penitentiary (5th Cir. 1970)
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
Gary Michael Quick appeals from an order of the district court denying his motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. We affirm. 1
The petitioner-appellant alleged that he had ordered and paid for various items from the prison canteen, but that the items were not delivered to him; his money not refunded; and that he was told by the sergeant in charge of the prison wing that “it was just too bad” if he did not receive this merchandise. He further alleged that the sergeant threatened to put him in the “hole” on a false disciplinary report if Quick filed a complaint. The district court denied relief stating that the petitioner-appellant should first seek relief through the prison’s administrative channels.
The petitioner-appellant’s allegations are a matter of internal prison administration. Recourse, therefore, must first be sought through administrative channels. Brown v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1308; Hess v. Blackwell, 5 Cir.1968, 409 F.2d 362; Beard v. Lee, 5 Cir.1968, 396 F.2d 749, 751.
The judgment is affirmed.
The appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is, therefore, appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily under this Court’s local Rule 9(c) (2). Kimbrough v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.