Garcia v. Steele, 14315.

Decision Date27 December 1951
Docket NumberNo. 14315.,14315.
PartiesGARCIA v. STEELE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Rexford H. Caruthers, St. Louis, Mo. (appointed by the Court), for appellant.

Sam M. Wear, U. S. Atty., and Sam O. Hargus, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., submitted brief for appellee.

Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The question presented by this appeal, prosecuted in forma pauperis, from an order dismissing the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, is whether a federal prisoner confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, who asserts that he is sane and therefore not a suitable subject for hospitalization in that institution, can require the District Court to determine whether his confinement therein is legal and whether he is entitled to be transferred by the Attorney General to some penal or correctional institution.

The question has been admirably and painstakingly briefed and argued on behalf of the appellant by counsel who was appointed by this Court to represent him on this appeal.

The appellant prepared his own petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed January 12, 1951. While the petition is disconnected and informal, it sufficiently shows that the appellant claims to be sane and for that reason an unsuitable subject for confinement among the insane at the Medical Center. The appellant does not attack the legality of his sentence of imprisonment, which was imposed by the District Court of the District of Columbia on July 16, 1948, upon appellant's plea of guilty to a charge of grand larceny. He was transferred, by order of the Attorney General, to the Medical Center from the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, on June 28, 1950, in conformity with § 4241, Title 18 U.S.C. While at Leavenworth he was in the neuro-psychopathic ward of the prison hospital, and upon his arrival at the Medical Center he was placed in a psychopathic ward of that institution. The certificate of the Board of Examiners at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, upon which the Attorney General based his order of transfer, is not set out in the petition of the appellant, but a copy of a letter, dated November 24, 1950, from the Clinical Director of the Medical Center to the appellant, which is annexed to his petition, shows that the Board of Examiners at Leavenworth had certified the appellant as being of "unsound mind." Following that certification, the appellant on September 14, 1950, filed a "Petition for a Sanity Hearing" in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He asserted in that petition that he had believed himself sane, but that the certificate of the Board of Examiners at Leavenworth indicated that there was probable cause to believe that he was insane when he entered a plea of guilty; and he asked for a hearing to determine his mental competency at the time of his conviction; this pursuant to § 4245, Title 18 U.S.C.

By a letter of December 12, 1950, the Law Clerk of the Honorable Bolitha J. Laws, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, advised the appellant that Judge Laws had referred his petition to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for disposition, that a Board of Mental Examiners was convened on November 16, 1950, at the request of the Director, and that the Board had determined that the appellant was sane at the time his plea of guilty was entered.

The Clinical Director of the Medical Center, on November 24, 1950, wrote the appellant as follows:

"To: Garcia, Alberto, Reg. No. 7618-H

"From: Dr. E. C. Rinck, Clinical Director.

"In answer to your note of November 23, 1950, I must reply that I cannot furnish you with copies of your commitment papers. The Board of Mental Examiners at Leavenworth certified you as being of unsound mind, the type of insanity not being specified as it is not required by Federal law.

"The Board of Mental Examiners convened at this institution, found you to be mentally competent."

The last paragraph of this letter refers to the Board of Mental Examiners which on November 16, 1950, found that the appellant was sane when he entered his plea of guilty.

An office memorandum of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons dated December 22, 1950, addressed to the Warden of the Medical Center, with reference to the appellant, reads as follows:

"To: Warden, Springfield

"From: Director, Bureau of Prisons

"Subject: Alberto Garcia, 7618-H

"Please inform this man that I have his recent letter concerning the petition he has forwarded to Judge Laws. Will you advise him that his communications have been forwarded to the Court. Also please advise him that our records show that the most recent report of a Board of Medical Examiners found him to be sane, not insane."

This memorandum also refers to the Board of Mental Examiners convened November 16, 1950.

The District Court permitted the appellant to file his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis, but dismissed it upon the grounds (1) that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Ramos v. Lamm
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • February 21, 1980
    ...See Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850, 851 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 829, 72 S.Ct. 53, 96 L.Ed. 627 (1951); Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276, 278 (8th Cir. 1951); and Dayton v. Hunter, 176 F.2d 108, 109 (10th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 888, 70 S.Ct. 184, 94 L.Ed. 545 (1950).......
  • Anderson v. Nosser
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 27, 1971
    ...Cir. 1966); Sutton v. Settle, 302 F.2d 286, 288 (8 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 930, 83 S.Ct. 876, 9 L.Ed.2d 734; Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276, 278 (8 Cir. 1951), see Holland v. Ciccone, 386 F. 2d 825 (8 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1045, 88 S.Ct. 1646, 20 L.Ed.2d 307, as well......
  • Jackson v. Bishop
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 9, 1968
    ...Cir. 1966); Sutton v. Settle, 302 F.2d 286, 288 (8 Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 930, 83 S.Ct. 876, 9 L.Ed.2d 734; Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276, 278 (8 Cir. 1951), see Holland v. Ciccone, 386 F.2d 825 (8 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1045, 88 S.Ct. 1646, 20 L.Ed.2d 307, as well ......
  • United States v. Mills
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 22, 1971
    ...hospital, but it's more or less a prison-type surroundings." We have previously noted the Center's status as a prison. Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276, 278 (8th Cir. 1951). Cf. Jones v. Harris, 339 F.2d 585, 586 (8th Cir. 1964); Rosheisen v. Steele, 193 F.2d 273, 275 (8th Cir. 1951); Jones v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Judges as Jailers: the Dangerous Disconnect Between Courts and Corrections
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 45, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...1969) ("We have consistently adhered to the so-called "hands off policy in matters of prison administration . . . ."); Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276, 278 (8th Cir. 1951) ("The courts have no supervisory jurisdiction over the conduct of the various institutions provided by law for the confi......
  • Recent Legal Developments
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review No. 34-2, June 2009
    • June 1, 2009
    ...(Vo1. 2, pp. 995-999). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Frey, S. (1997). Religion behind bars. Dickson Law Review, 101, 753-766.Garcia v. Steele, 193 F.2d 276 (8th Cir. 1951).Gibson v. Moskovitz, 523 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2008).Grieveson v. Anderson 538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008).Hammer v. Ashcroft, 512......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT