390 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1968), 20303, Eason v. Dickson
|Citation:||390 F.2d 585|
|Party Name:||James EASON, Appellant, v. Fred R. DICKSON, Chairman, Adult Authority of the State of California, Richard A. McGee, Administrator, Youth and Adult Corrections Agency of the State of California, Appellees.|
|Case Date:||January 30, 1968|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
James Eason, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of State of Cal., Albert W. Harris, Jr., Ast. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
KOELSCH, Circuit Judge.
James Eason is a prisoner in a California penal institution. For present purposes we accept the following facts as true: 1 Eason was convicted on two counts of robbery in the first degree (Cal.Pen.Code §§ 211, 211a) and was duly sentenced under the California Indeterminate Sentence law for the term prescribed by law, which is from five years to life. (Cal.Pen.Code §§ 213; 1168; Eason v. Dunbar, 367 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1966)). He entered the California State Penitentiary at San Quentin on January 13, 1947. On January 13, 1954 he was released on parole by the Adult Authority, but on December 6, 1956 his parole was suspended; he was returned to prison and his term was refixed at the maximum-- life. On September 18, 1957 a parole violation hearing was held. Eason pleaded not guilty, but the Adult Authority refused to permit him to give evidence, to call witnesses or to have an attorney, and found that he had violated his parole, which was then revoked.
Eason then commenced this suit under the Federal Civil Rights Act (23 U.S.C. § 1343; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983) seeking damages and injunctive relief against Fred R. Dickson, Chairman of the Adult Authority Board, and Richard A. McGee, Administrator of the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency of California. He made several contentions. First, he asserted that to revoke his parole without a proper hearing constituted a denial of due process and he asked for an injunction against the enforcement of Cal.Pen.Code §§ 2924, 3060, 3063 and 5077. Second, he asserted that his 'terms as originally fixed could not legally or lawfully be refixed (Sections 3060 and 5077 of the California Penal Code) or relitigated as additional punishment. * * *' He asserted that such revocation of parole and refixing of his term amounted to 'multiple punishment' prohibited by Cal.Pen.Code § 654.
In a petition accompanying his complaint, Eason requested that a three judge district court be convened to hear the matter, in view of the prayer for injunctive relief (28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284). In an order entered on October 14, 1964 the district court judge denied Eason's petition. On November 12, 1964 Eason lodged a notice of appeal from the 'Order of Denial of October 14, 1964.' Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted on December 1, 1964, and final judgment was entered for defendant. 2 Eason submitted no further notice of appeal.
We are confronted at the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP