Taylor v. United States Board of Parole
TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE; TAYLOR v. McGRATH, Attorney General of United States (Two Cases)
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Motions have been made in behalf of appellees (defendants below) to affirm the judgments below upon the ground that each appeal is without merit. The attorney as *883 signed by this court to represent appellant, a prisoner confined in the Medical Center for .Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, also advises the court to like effect.
In 11108 the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. See opinion of this court in McCann v. Clark, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. -, 191 F.2d 476 . Moreover, as the complaint apparently seeks a declaratory judgment concerning matters which do not present an actual controversy it clearly fails to state a- cause of action. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. Warren, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 60 , 129 F.2d 43 .
In 11109 complainant seeks by mandamus to obtain his transfer from the Medical Center .at Springfield to an ordinary penal institution upon the ground that he was illegally transferred to the Center and is now illegally detained there. Mandamus will not lie. It cannot be used as a substitute for habeas corpus. McMurtrey v. Clark, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 294 , 157 F.2d 703 , certiorari denied, 1947, 329 U.S. 805 , 67 S.Ct. 492 , 91 L.Ed. 687 . Nor will habeas corpus lie in the District of Columbia, for the complainant is not confined within the territorial jurisdiction of its courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ; Ahrens v. Clark, 1948, 335 U.S. 188 , 68 S.Ct. 1443 , 92 L.Ed. 1898 ; McAffee v. Clemmer, 1948, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 57, 171 F.2d 131 , certiorari denied, 1949, 337 U.S. 932 , 69 S.Ct. 1485 , 93 L.Ed. 1739 . Cf. Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376 , 381, 182 F.2d 677 , 682, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 828 , 71 S.Ct. 65 , 95 L.Ed. 608 .
In 11153, complainant also seeks through injunction proceedings to test the validity of his detention at Springfield by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced. However, his suit cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, nor to compel the Attorney General to exercise powers which do not belong to him. McMurtrey v. Clark, supra. Furthermore, the proper remedy, if any, is by way of habeas corpus or Title 28, § 2255, United States Code, which would not lie in this jurisdiction. McAffee v. Clemmer, supra. See Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350 .
The motion to affirm is granted in each case.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 53 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that the “proper remedy [to challenge constitutionality of a conviction] is by way of habeas corpus of Title 28 Sec. 2255, United States Code”)
-
(stating that attack on constitutionality of statute under which defendant was convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255)
-
(sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing)
-
(challenge to validity of detention and constitutionality of statute of conviction must be pursued under § 225 5)
-
(mandamus “cannot be used as a substitute for habeas corpus”)
Cited by 99 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.