422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970), 19849, Cates v. Ciccone

Docket Nº:19849.
Citation:422 F.2d 926
Party Name:Donald A. CATES, Appellant, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Appellee.
Case Date:March 19, 1970
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 926

422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970)

Donald A. CATES, Appellant,

v.

Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Appellee.

No. 19849.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 19, 1970

Page 927

Donald A. Cates, pro se.

Calvin K. Hamilton, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Frederick O. Griffin, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee.

Before BLACKMUN, GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises from the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus to a federal prisoner confined at the United States Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. According to petitioner's pro se brief, his basic complaint in the district court related to (1) improper medical treatment and (2) his denial of access to law books. The district court, the Honorable William Collinson, upon review of the affidavits filed and the government's response to an order to show cause, as well as the medical record of the petitioner, denied petitioner relief. Petitioner's basic complaint upon appeal relates to a denial of right of counsel to properly present his case in the district court. We affirm the order of dismissal.

The district court determined from all of the records and current reports of the Springfield Medical Center that reasonable medical treatment was not in any way being denied the petitioner. The district court likewise found that there was no showing that the petitioner was being denied reasonable access to law books. We agree with both conclusions.

It is settled law in this circuit that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy to seek correction of alleged unconstitutional prison discipline. See Williams v. Steele, 194 F.2d 32, 34 (8 Cir. 1952), rehearing denied 194 F.2d 917, cert. denied 344 U.S. 822, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 640 (1952). See also United States ex rel. Knight v. Ragen, 337 F.2d 425 (7 Cir. 1964); Long v. Parker, 390 F.2d 816 (3 Cir. 1968); United States ex rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, 403 F.2d 371 (2 Cir. 1968). In the Williams case, we rejected reasoning to the contrary set forth in Coffin v. Reichard, 143 F.2d 443, 445 (6 Cir. 1944). However, in Harris v. Settle, 322 F.2d 908, 910 (8 Cir. 1963), we acknowledged that there can be exceptional situations where a court will undertake 'to review the nature and conditions of a prisoner's otherwise lawful confinement.' In Harris, we talked of treatment as being 'so unreasonable as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the prohibition of the Eighth...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP