Ex parte Hull. No. —
| Citation | 61 S.Ct. 640,312 U.S. 546,85 L.Ed. 1034 |
| Parties | Ex parte HULL. No. —-, Original. Rehearing Denied |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1941 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
In January, 1936, petitioner was convicted of a statutory sex offense and was sentenced to the Michigan state prison at Jackson, Michigan, for an indeterminate term of six months to ten years. About ten months later he was paroled. In October, 1937, he was convicted of another sex offense and was returned to the same prison to serve a sentence of two and one-half to five years from entry of the second judgment. Apparently for the sole reason that the second conviction was regarded as a violation of his parole, petitioner was given a hearing before the state parole board and was passed indefinitely toward the maximum sentence for the first offense. See Michigan Statutes Annotated, 1940 supplement, § 28.2108.
In November, 1940, petitioner prepared a petition for writ of habeas corpus and exhibits to file in this Court. He took the papers to a prison official and requested him to notarize them. The official refused and informed petitioner that the papers and a registered letter to the clerk of this Court concerning them would not be accepted for mailing. Although the papers were not notarized, petitioner then delivered them to his father for mailing outside the prison but guards confiscated them. Several days later, petitioner again attempted to mail a letter concerning his case to the clerk of this Court. It was intercepted and sent to the legal investigator for the state parole board. 1 Apparently neither of the let- ters was returned to the petitioner,2 and the papers taken from his father were not returned until late in December.
Petitioner then prepared another document which he somehow managed to have his father, as 'agent', file with the clerk of this Court on December 26, 1940. In this document petitioner detailed his efforts to file the papers confiscated by prison officials, contended that he was therefore unlawfully restrained, and prayed that he be released.
On January 6, 1941, we issued a rule to show cause why leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. The warden filed a return to the rule setting forth the circumstances of the two convictions, the proceedings of the parole board, and numerous exhibits. In justification of the action preventing petitioner from filing his papers or communicating with this Court, the warden alleged that in November, 1940, he had published a regulation providing that:
In answer, petitioner filed a 'Response to the Return' which again challenged the validity of this regulation and which contained numerous exhibits. One of the exhibits was the petition for writ of habeas corpus taken from petitioner's father. In brief, this petition assailed the legality of petitioner's imprisonment under the second conviction on the ground that he had been denied procedural due process.
The first question concerns the effect of the regulation quoted in the warden's return.
The regulation is invalid. The considerations that prompted its formulation are not without merit, but the state and its officers may not abridge or impair petitioner's right to apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus. Whether a petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to a federal court is properly drawn and what allegations it must contain are questions for that court alone to determine. Compare First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 341, 346, 46 S.Ct. 135, 137, 70 L.Ed. 295; Erie Railroad v. Purdy, 185 U.S. 148, 152, 22 S.Ct. 605, 606, 46 L.Ed. 847; Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 447, 20 S.Ct. 687, 689, 44 L.Ed. 839; see Ex parte Sharp, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 464.
However, the invalidity of the prison regulation does not compel petitioner's release. For that reason it is necessary to examine the petition annexed to the response. Although it is here as an exhibit to the response, it may be considered as a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus inasmuch as the warden has not had an opportunity to answer it. The next question, therefore, is whether this petition is premature.
The petition is not premature. Compare McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238; Re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149. Despite the fact that petitioner is now in prison under the sentence for the first offense, he was at liberty on parole at the time he was arrested and charged with the second offense. True, parole...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davie v. Wingard, Civil Action No. C-2-95-513.
...adequate access to the law library in violation of his constitutional right to access to the courts. See Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549, 61 S.Ct. 640, 641-42, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941). A prisoner's right to access to the courts includes adequate access to a law library or legal assistance. Se......
-
Procunier v. Martinez 8212 1465
...availability of professional representation or other aspects of the right of access to the courts are invalid. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941). The District Court found that the rule restricting attorney-client interviews to members of the bar and licensed pr......
-
Casey v. Lewis, No. 91-16513
...are invalid." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1814, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), (citing Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941)). Accord Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1495, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) (due process guarantees prisoner......
-
Nadeau v. Helgemoe
...F.2d 475, 477-78 (5th Cir. 1973). Accord, Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941); Nolan v. Scafati, 430 F.2d 548, 551 (1st Cir. 1970). Not only is the state forbidden from interfering with a prison......
-
ELIMINATING THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE IN IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
...indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." (first citing Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485 (1969); and then citing Exparte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549 (294) A First Amendment Right of Access to the Courts for Indigents, 82 YALK LJ. 1055, 1064 n.61 (1973). (295) 8 U.S.C. [section] 1252(a......
-
Double helix, double bind: factual innocence and postconviction DNA testing.
...Brady is only a "trial" right), with cases cited infra notes 133-34 (applying right of access to claims for postconviction relief). (72) 312 U.S. 546, 548 (73) Id. (74) Id. at 549. (75) See Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255, 257-58 (1942) (stating that a state prison's suppression of appeal d......
-
The constitutionality of federal restrictions on the indemnification of attorneys' fees.
...Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969) (rejecting restrictions on prisoners providing legal assistance to each other); Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549 (1941) ("[T]he state.., may not abridge or impair [a prisoner's] right to apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas (254) 42 U.S.C.......
-
Prisoners' Rights and the Rehnquist Court Era
...Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941).Falzerano v. Collins, 535 F.Supp. 800 (D.N.J. 1982).Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).Feeley, M. M., & Rubin, E. L. (1998). Jud......