Banningv.Looney

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth CircuitJun 25, 1954
213 F.2d 771 (10th Cir. 1954)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • RAMOS v. LAMM

    …Language from the Tenth Circuit is suggestive of the attitude that "[c]ourts are without power to supervise…

  • Jordan v. U.S. Department of Justice

    …Except under extraordinary circumstances, the Court does not interfere with a prison facility's day-to-day…

lock 12 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 4853.

June 25, 1954.

Ralph M. Clarke, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Milton P. Beach, Asst. U.S. Atty., Oskaloosa, Kan. (William C. Farmer, U.S. Atty., Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and PICKETT, United States Circuit Judges.


Appellant is confined under judgment of conviction in the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. In substance his complaint in this proceeding is that his constitutional rights are being violated by the prison authorities, in that he is not permitted to process directly with the U.S. Patent Office an alleged invention which he claims to have developed. He complains that the prison rules and regulations require him to process the matter first through the office of Director of Bureau of Prisons. He also asked the trial court to inquire into his attempted escape record at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and to compel the prison authorities there to remove the "infamous lie" from his record.

Courts are without power to supervise prison administration or to interfere with the ordinary prison rules or regulations. Neither have we power to inquire with respect to the prisoner's detention in the Lewisburg Prison. No authorities are needed to support those statements. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Affirmed.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.