JOHN BRENT TARLTON, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
J. D. HENDERSON, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Prison officials' refusal to allow a prisoner to purchase a typewriter does not deny access to the courts, nor does it violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.
A federal prisoner sought mandamus to compel prison officials to allow him to purchase a typewriter for personal use. He argued this refusal denied hi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Denial Of Access To Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant in this case, a federal prisoner, sought mandamus to compel prison officials to allow him to purchase a typewriter for his personal use. He contended below that the officials’ refusal to allow him to buy a typewriter constituted a denial of his right of access to the courts, and an illegal restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The district court denied the petition for mandamus. We affirm.1
This Court has not previously decided whether prison inmates must be permitted to purchase typewriters. In Durham v. Blackwell, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 838, we held that a prison library was not obligated to type prisoners’ legal briefs for them, since the courts accept handwritten briefs. Since a litigant’s cause is not prejudiced by the filing of a handwritten brief, a prohibition against the purchase of typewriters cannot constitute denial of access to the courts.
The appellant’s second contention is likewise without merit, since the Sherman Antitrust Act does not apply to government activities of this sort. See, e. g., Alabama Power Co. v. Alabama Elec. Co-op, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 394 F. 2d 672, 675, cert. denied, 1968, 393 U.S. 1000, 89 S.Ct. 488, 21 L.Ed.2d 465.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
. It is appropriate to dispose of this pro se case summarily, pursuant to this Court’s local Rule 9(c)(2), since the appellant failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Fed.R.App.P. 31. Kim-brough v. Beto, 5 Cir. 1969, 412 F. 2d 981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolfish v. Honorable Edward Levi, 573 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1978)
-
Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1978)
-
Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. OF Corr., 776 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kimbrough v. Beto, 412 F.2d 981 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Ala. Power Co. v. Ala. Elec. Coop., Inc., 394 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Cont'l Nut Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)
- Ragen v. California, 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)
- Durham v. Olin G. Blackwell, 409 F.2d 838 (5th Cir. 1969)