John Reuben Paden v. United States
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Roy Buise v. Donald Hudkins, Individually and as Superintendent of the Indiana State Farm (7th Cir. 1978)
- In re Muszalski (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
- Richard X. Brown v. C. C. Peyton, Etc. (4th Cir. 1971)
- Dan S. Hessbrook v. M.C. Lennon, Jr., D.A. French, and J. Saxman (5th Cir. 1986)
- Freeman v. Fuller (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1985)
- Lillian Willene Miller and Bobby Joe Miller v. Fred Stanmore and Fred A. Frey, Warden, Fci (5th Cir. 1981)
- Green v. Arnold (District Court, W.D. Texas 1981)
- Sam Lane, Jr. v. Jack A. Hanberry, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia (5th Cir. 1979)
- Arthur Mitchell, Gregory Robertson, and William Birtha v. Michael Beaubouef (5th Cir. 1978)
- Ronald Royce Lundy v. R. A. Osborn, Warden Fci (5th Cir. 1977)
- Smith v. Fenton (District Court, E.D. Illinois 1976)
- Bobby Hardwick v. Dr. Allen Ault, Commissioner, State Board of Offender Rehabilitation, Etc. (5th Cir. 1975)
- Bijeol v. Benson (District Court, S.D. Indiana 1975)
- Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons (5th Cir. 1974)
- Leslie D. Willis v. Dr. P. J. Ciccone (8th Cir. 1974)
- James X. Waddell v. Noah L. Alldredge, Warden (3d Cir. 1973)
- Michael A. Light v. United States (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
Appellant, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, petitioned the district court for an order directing the prison administrators to permit the prisoners to form a black culture organization and to allow them to use prison facilities for organizational activities. Because appellant did not attempt to obtain review of his complaint through the available administrative channels, the district court denied the petition. We affirm. 1
In his complaint the appellant asserts that he has been deprived of fundamental constitutional rights and implies an abuse of discretion by the prison administrators who denied his request. However, in the administration of federal prisons 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. Green v. United States, 283 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1960). In line with these; regulations, grievances of prisoners concerning prison administration should be presented to the Bureau through the available administration channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case. Quick v. Thompkins, 425 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1970); Granville v. Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969); Hess v. Blackwell, 409 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1968); Beard v. Lee, 396 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1968).
Since appellant should have made use of available administrative channels before bringing this request to the court, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. Pursuant to our Rule 18 this case is decided without oral argument.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.