James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton, 478 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
James Henry Eisenhardt v. S. J. Britton, 478 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Robert G. McCray v. L. B. Sullivan, as Commissioner of the Alabama State Board of Corrections, Etal., Jerry White and Alvin Claybrone v. Commissioner of Alabama Board of Corrections (ca5, 1975-03-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Robert G. McCray v. L. B. Sullivan, as Commissioner of the Alabama State Board of Corrections, Etal., Jerry White and Alvin Claybrone v. Commissioner of Alabama Board of Corrections
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisenhardt v. Britton, 478 F.2d 855 (CA5, 1973); Barlow v. Amiss, 477 F.2d 896 (CA5, 1973); Frye v. Henderson, 474 F.2d 1263 (CA5, 1973); Schack v. Wainwright, 391 F.2d 608 (CA5), cert. denied 392 U.S. 915 , 88 S.Ct. 2078 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1375 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" McCray v. Sullivan
5th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Eisenhardt v. Britton, 478 F.2d 855 (CA5, 1973); Barlow v. Amiss, 477 F.2d 896 (CA5, 1973); Frye v. Henderson, 474 F.2d 1263 (CA5, 1973); Schack v. Wainwright, 391 F.2d 608 (CA5), cert. denied 392 U.S. 915 , 88 S.Ct. 2078 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1375 (1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James Henry EISENHARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. J. BRITTON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
73-1279.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 7, 1973.
478 F.2d 855
James Henry Eisenhardt, pro se., John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Beverly B. Bates, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Brown, Dyer, Simpson.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, petitioner James Henry Eisenhardt, a former inmate of the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, seeks redress in the form of damages from various prison officials for a tort which he dubs “abuse of process.” The genesis of the conflict is a certain misconduct report filed by the defendants and charging the petitioner with the unlawful use of a prison typewriter to type a court petition. After months of patient accommodation to this law suit, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.

While this court earnestly seeks to remain detached from the every day administrative problems of a prison, Royal v. Clark, 5 Cir., 1971, 447 F.2d 501; Krist v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 146; Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9, we are never reluctant to strike down impediments to a prisoner’s constitutionally guaranteed right of access to the courts. See Cruz v. Hauck, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 475. But the availability of a typewriter is not necessary for judicial review. Durham v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 838; Tarlton v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 200; Stubblefield v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 475 F.2d 26; Sprouse v. Moore & Henderson, 5 Cir., 1973, 476 F.2d 995. Unless judicial intervention[*856] is necessary to secure constitutional rights, the courts will not interfere with matters of pure internal prison management. Clearly,' appellant’s conduct here is just such a matter.

Affirmed.