Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Terry Lee Ross v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U.S. Pen., Atlanta, Ga.

Terry Lee Ross v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U.S. Pen., Atlanta, Ga., 491 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1974)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1974-03-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • federal prisoner sought mandamus relief regarding the actions of prison officials in seizing sexually oriented book he had ordered by mail
  • exhaustion of 2001.6 required before prisoner can sue for recovery of sexually-oriented book ordered through mails and seized by prison authorities

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Terry Lee Ross v. J. D. Henderson, Warden, U.S. Pen., Atlanta, Ga.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
ROSS v. HENDERSON,491 F.2d 116(5th Cir. 1974)
TERRY LEE ROSS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. J. D. HENDERSON, WARDEN, U.S.
PEN., ATLANTA, GA., ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
No. 73-1858.
Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 15, 1974.
Terry Lee Ross, 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 GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] On December 8, 1972 the petitioner, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, sought mandamus relief regarding the actions of prison officials in seizing a sexually oriented book which he had ordered by mail. The petition was denied on its merits on February 28, 1973. During the pendency of this appeal the Bureau of Prisons instituted an administrative procedure at this institution for review of grievances of the type advanced by petitioner here. The Northern District of Georgia now consistently requires that this procedure be exhausted.SeeSingleton v. Henderson, CA # 19339, NovemberPage 11713, 1973; Parker, et al v. Henderson, CA # 19023, September 24, 1973; and Tanger v. Henderson, CA # 18922, September 5, 1973.

[2] Pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 2106, the order denying relief on the merits is vacated and this cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in the light of these intervening events.

[3] Vacated and remanded.
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩