Sidney Renee Davis & Samuel John Major Davis, Jr. v. Norman Carlson, Dir., U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 837 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Sidney Renee Davis & Samuel John Major Davis, Jr. v. Norman Carlson, Dir., U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 837 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PC) Allen v. Clendenin (caed, 2023-09-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Allen v. Clendenin
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Kentucky Dep't of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 , 109 S.Ct. 1904 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (no due 19 process right to unfettered visitation); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 , 585– 20 88, 104 S.Ct. 3227 , 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984) (pretrial detainees have no constitutional due process right to contact visits); Hernandez, 18 F.3d at 137 (no 21 constitutional right to conjugal visits); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988) (same); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080 , 1113–1114 (9th 22 Cir.1986) (denial of contact visits does not violate Eighth Amendment). 23 The fa…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curtis v. Egan
E.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Petzold v. Rostollan, – F.3d –, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38573 , 2019 WL 7206050 (5th Cir., December 27, 2019), n. 41; Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamiel Johnson v. Angela Auman
3rd Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See generally Olim v. Wakinekoua, 461 U.S. 238, 245 , 103 S.Ct. 1741 , 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (198S)(inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison or state); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.l988)(prisoner has no right to be transferred to facility closer to family).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Becerra v. Miner
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
See generally, Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 , 103 S.Ct. 1741 , 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983)(inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison or state); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988)(prisoner has no right to be transferred to facility closer to family).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Figueroa Zapata
D.P.R. · 2004 · confidence medium
See also, Gerber v. Hickman, 291 F.3d 617, 622 (9th Cir.2002) (“the right to procreate while in prison is fundamentally inconsistent with incarceration”); and Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988).
examined Cited as authority (rule) William Gerber v. Rodney Hickman, Warden (4×)
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 , 109 S.Ct. 1904 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989) (no due process right to unfettered visitation); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 585-88 , 104 S.Ct. 3227 , 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984) (pretrial detainees have no constitutional due process right to contact visits); Hernandez, 18 F.3d at 137 (no constitutional right to conjugal visits); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988) (same); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1113-1114 (9th Cir.1986) (denial of contact visits does not violate Eighth Amendment). 1 The fact that Californi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harrison v. Barbour
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir.) (no liberty interest in extended family visits), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 117 (1994); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988) (no constitutional right to conjugal visits).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin Trowery v. William Perrill, Warden, Also Known as Bill Perrill, Fci Englewood, Colorado K.W. Hawk, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Trowery alleged that he has a constitutional right to conjugal visits but that this right has been denied him by the defendants. 3 The magistrate judge, citing to Davis v. Carlson, Director of Bureau of Prisons, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988) and Montana v. Commissioners Court, 659 F.2d 19, 21 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026 (1982), ruled that Trowery's complaint failed to set forth a claim inasmuch as a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits.
cited Cited as authority (rule) JO LYNN MCKNIGHT; SUSAN BANKS; STACY NAVA v. GARY L JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, ET AL
unknown court · confidence medium
Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334-35 (5th Cir. 1975)(upholding ban in the face of challenge by inmate); Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir. 1988)(rejecting challenge by inmate’s wife).
discussed Cited "see" Hamer v. Central Office Administrative Remedy
N.D. Tex. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir. 1988) (determining that a federal inmate has no right to be transferred to a facility closer to family).
cited Cited "see" Puckett v. Stuckey
Miss. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir. 1988), and McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.1975).
cited Cited "see" McFadden v. State
Miss. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988), and McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. Johnson
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Davis v. Carlson, 837 F.2d 1318, 1319 (5th Cir.1988) (the court has “no power to [transfer the prisoner to a prison near plaintiff wife’s residence], there being no clear duty — nor, indeed, any duty — on the part of the Bureau [of Prisons] to do that”); Garrett v. Angelone, 940 F.Supp. 933, 944 (W.D.Va.1996) (“neither inmates nor their potential visitors have any constitutional right to visitation”), aff 'd, 107 F.3d 865 (4th Cir.1997); Walters v. United States, No. Civ.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sidney Renee DAVIS and Samuel John Major Davis, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Norman CARLSON, Director, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Defendant-Appellee
87-1539.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 22, 1988.
837 F.2d 1318
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2025
1988 WL 7111
Sidney Renee Davis, pro se., Samuel John Major Davis, Jr., pro se., Charles D. Cabaniss, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Gee, Garwood, Jones.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Samuel Davis, Jr., a federal prisoner incarcerated in Texas, and his wife, a resident of Memphis, appeal the dismissal of their pro se complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. Davis’s claims all relate to the manner in which the prison is administered; and although he took some of these through the first stage of administrative channels, he did not pursue even these to the Office of General Counsel. Because he did not exhaust the available administrative remedies, his attempt to resort to the courts was properly dismissed. Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534 (5th Cir.1977).

Mrs. Davis’s claims were also properly dismissed, although for different and disparate reasons. The first essentially requests that we order the Bureau of Prisons to transfer Davis to a prison near her residence. We have no power to do such a thing, there being no clear duty— nor, indeed, any duty — on the part of the Bureau to do that. She next attempts to raise a claim derivative from one which Davis failed to exhaust: that he might send her money derived from an income-producing job assigned him if he had one, and he would have one were it not that these are assigned on a racially discriminatory basis. This highly-speculative, attempted end-run around the exhaustion requirement cannot be countenanced and was properly dismissed. Her third claim is a complaint of the denial of conjugal visits. No such constitutional right exists, McCray v. Sullivan, 509 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.1975); nor are we cited to any common-law or statutory authority supporting one. Finally, Mrs. Davis asserts that Davis’s incarceration violates her rights against cruel and unusual punishment. It may be, of course, that the incarceration of Davis causes inconvenience, even hardship, to Mrs. Davis; and this is, of course, most unfortunate. There is, however, no intent to punish Mrs. Davis; and unless we were empowered and prepared to declare that because of the effect on the spouse a married person cannot be punished by incarceration, her claim is doomed. We are neither, and it is.

AFFIRMED.