Cranford v. Nix, 94-2031

Decision Date03 January 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-2031,94-2031
Citation43 F.3d 1210
PartiesDuke Fredrick CRANFORD, Appellee, v. Crispus NIX; Paul Hedgepeth; Jim Helling; Anderson; Huff; Kirkbach; John Lambert; and Randy Martin, Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Layne M. Lindebak, Des Moines, IA, argued (Bonnie J. Campbell and Suzie A. Berregaard Thomas, on the brief), for appellants.

Thomas John O'Flaherty, Cedar Rapids, IA, argued, for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BARNES, * District Judge.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Duke Fredrick Cranford has two civil actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa arising out of disputes occurring while he was an inmate in the Iowa correctional system, having been imprisoned there under a contract with the State of Nevada, which originally sentenced Cranford. After these lawsuits had been filed, Cranford was transferred back to Nevada, which then contracted with Connecticut to keep him imprisoned. In order to put himself in the best possible position for trial of these actions, Cranford, acting through appointed counsel, moved the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum directed to Crispus Nix, at the time Superintendent of the Iowa Department of Correction. The purpose of the writ was to require Nix to transport Cranford to Iowa for trial at state expense.

The State of Iowa, acting through the respondent Nix, objected to this burden's being imposed upon it, but the objections were overruled by the District Court, and Nix appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, both parties--Cranford and Nix--agreed that in fact the writ should not have been directed to Nix, because he was not Cranford's custodian and had no power to produce him in Iowa. Instead, the parties tell us, the proper respondent would be the State of Nevada or, more precisely, whatever official of the State of Nevada has legal custody of Cranford. Cranford is physically in Connecticut, but Nevada, as the sentencing state, has the power to direct his production elsewhere.

Thus, the appeal has become moot. The question whether the District Court abused its discretion or otherwise acted unlawfully in requiring Iowa to bear the expense of Cranford's production is no longer at issue between the parties. Both sides agree that Iowa has no such obligation. There is no longer a live controversy, and accordingly no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Termini v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • December 8, 2006
  • Reisch-Elvin v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 3, 2005
  • Keevan v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 16, 1996
    ...Court's order dealing with this claim are vacated. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); Cranford v. Nix, 43 F.3d 1210, 1211 (8th Cir. 1995). We turn now to the women's contention that Department officials' policy for determining the placement of prison industries is e......

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