From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Bell

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 9, 1977
551 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1977)

Summary

balancing test

Summary of this case from Lynott v. Henderson

Opinion

No. 76-2311.

May 9, 1977.

Alvin J. Bronstein, Matthew L. Myers, National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, D.C., Deborah Carliner, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Mitchell B. Dubick, George W. Calhoun, Special Litigation Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Richard L. Thornburgh, Asst. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Newell Edenfield, J.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and COLEMAN and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.


This appeal is taken from an order of the District Court denying injunctive and declaratory relief to a class of federal prisoners incarcerated at the Atlanta penitentiary. The prisoners filed a complaint against the United States Attorney General and various officials of the Bureau of Prisons claiming certain portions of the Bureau's regulation pertaining to visitation rights are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. They further alleged that the regulations created unreasonable classifications of those who are, and who are not, eligible to visit prisoners. In denying the relief, the District Court held that the regulations did not unduly interfere with the prisoners' constitutional rights considering the legitimate interest prison officials have in rehabilitation of the prisoners and maintenance of institutional security. We affirm.

Jurisdiction was invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 1361, 2201, 2202 and pursuant to portions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 702- 704. The District Court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the action under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361.

The facts of this case are adequately set forth in the District Court's opinion. Further, the opinion ably treats all aspects of the case, and in our opinion, correctly decided all issues. We therefore affirm on the basis of the District Court's reported decision. Hamilton v. Saxbe, 428 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D.Ga. 1976).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Bell

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 9, 1977
551 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1977)

balancing test

Summary of this case from Lynott v. Henderson
Case details for

Hamilton v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:LEE HAMILTON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, CHARLES WOODROW SMITH, JR., AND MARIAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 9, 1977

Citations

551 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Lynott v. Henderson

Even so, limitations of visitation may be imposed only if they are necessary to meet legitimate penological…

Ybarra v. Nevada Board of State Prison Commissioners

This is especially true when the visitor is not a close relative but, rather, a girlfriend. Hamilton v.…