From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sprouse v. Moore

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 24, 1973
476 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-3426. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

April 24, 1973.

Irby Sprouse, Jr., pro se.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH and CLARK, Circuit Judges.



Appellant, an inmate of the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, appeals from the denial by the United States District Court of his petition for mandamus to force the prison authorities to allow him the use of typewriters for legal correspondence and matters other than formal motions to the courts. We affirm.

As we just recently said in Stubblefield v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 26:

"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. 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."

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Sprouse v. Moore

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 24, 1973
476 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1973)
Case details for

Sprouse v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:IRBY SPROUSE, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES C. MOORE, CASEWORKER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 24, 1973

Citations

476 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

Eisenhardt v. Britton

See Cruz v. Hauck, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 475. But the availability of a typewriter is not necessary for…