Norwood E. Jones and William Scott Winans v. Norman A. Carlson, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Arthur Mitchell, Gregory Robertson, and William Birtha v. Michael Beaubouef (5th Cir. 1978)
- In re Serna (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
- United States v. Lightcap (3d Cir. 1977)
- United States ex rel. Ricketts v. Lightcap (3d Cir. 1977)
- Samuel J.M. Davis, Jr. v. P.W. Keohane, Warden (6th Cir. 1987)
- Freeman v. Fuller (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1985)
- Levon Arnez Pyles, Pro Se v. Norman A. Carlson (11th Cir. 1983)
- Johnson v. Carlson (District Court, N.D. Texas 1983)
- Fred Kyle v. Jack Hanberry and Norman Carlson (11th Cir. 1982)
- 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)
- In re Muszalski (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)
- Knight v. Henderson (5th Cir. 1974)
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
Jones, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, and Winans, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action for injunction and other relief arising out of the alleged interference with their correspondence concerning pending litigation.
We deem it unnecessary to reach the merits of the ruling appealed since it appears that the appellants have not sought relief through the proper administrative channels before presenting their grievances for judicial review. As the Court stated in Paden v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 882, 883:
“[I]n 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 administrati [ve] channels. Only after such remedies are exhausted will the court entertain the application for relief in an appropriate case.”
See also Waddell v. Alldredge, 3 Cir. 1973, 480 F.2d 1078; Ledesma v. United States, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 1323; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 873.
The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the cause remanded with directions that the action be dismissed in order that the appellants may exhaust their administrative remedies in accordance with Bureau of Prisons policy statement 2001.6 (February 14, 1974) . 1
Vacated and remanded.
. See Thompson v. U. S. Prison Industries, 5 Cir. 1974, 492 F.2d 1082 [1974]; Ross v. Henderson, 5 Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 116 [1974].
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.