Kermit Stubblefield v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision. The 9 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Quinones-Cedeno v. Bureau of Prisons (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 2020)
- United States v. Santiago (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2016)
- Kendrick v. Bland (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 1984)
- Nowlin v. Scurr (Iowa 1983)
- Ramos v. Lamm (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1980)
- Robert L. Twyman v. Richard A. Crisp, Phillip Kirk, Melvin D. Typer, James E. Sorrells, and Charles E. Stamper (10th Cir. 1978)
- United States Ex Rel. Wolfish v. Levi (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
- Irby Sprouse, Jr. v. Charles C. Moore, Caseworker, U. S. Penitentiary, and J. D. Henderson, Warden, Etc. (5th Cir. 1973)
- James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton (5th Cir. 1973)
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
This appeal comes before us under the provisions of Local Rule 9(c)(2), the appellant having failed to file a brief. 1 We affirm the judgment below.
Appellant, an inmate of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, filed his complaint in the district court alleging that he has been denied the assistance of another inmate to type letters on legal matters. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice to refile upon exhaustion of administrative remedies. Appellant sought relief from the Bureau of Prisons, which advised him that regulations at Atlanta provide that typewriters and typists are available only for preparation of writs, not for letters. Appellant then refiled his petition in the district court, and the petition was dismissed.
It is well established that an inmate has no federally protected right to the use of typewriters to prepare legal writs. Williams v. United States Department of Justice, 5th Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 958; Durham v. Blackwell, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 838; see also Tarlton v. *27 Henderson, 5th Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 200. It follows, therefore, that an inmate has no federally protected right to use typewriters for correspondence, whether personal or legal. The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9 (c) (2), appellant having failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kimbrough v. Beto, Director, 5th Cir. 1969, 412 F.2d 981.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.