Bunce v. Williams, Civ. No. 17497.
| Citation | 159 F. Supp. 325 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 17497. |
| Parties | Harold BUNCE, Arstell Young, Charles D. Walker, Fred Parks, Louis E. Hughes, Tecumseh Stewart and Edward Rios, Plaintiffs, v. G. Mennen WILLIAMS, Governor of the State of Michigan, and Thomas M. Kavanaugh, Attorney General of Michigan, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Louis E. Hughes, in pro. per.
Thos. M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Perry A. Maynard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendants.
O'SULLIVAN, District Judge.
The pleadings disclose the following situation: Plaintiffs are presently incarcerated in the State Prison of Southern Michigan, under sentences imposed by Circuit Judges of the State of Michigan, for violations of Michigan Statutes relating to illegal traffic in narcotic drugs. The Statute under which each of them was sentenced is Act 266 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1952 (M.S.A., § 18.1121-§ 18.1127, C.L.1948, § 335.151-§ 335.157). Plaintiffs aver that their sentences were variously imposed under § 2 and § 3 of that Statute. None of the plaintiffs aver that they are innocent of the offenses set forth in the Statute, nor that the sentences imposed on them, respectively, were not within the permissible sentences provided by the Statute.
Plaintiffs aver that they are Negroes, and that various white persons sentenced for violations of the narcotic laws of Michigan were given less severe sentences than the plaintiffs herein; and that these white persons, although guilty of the same offenses as the plaintiffs, were sentencd under a different Statute than that which was the basis for the sentences imposed upon these plaintiffs. They ask this Court's injunction to restrain the Governor of Michigan and his Attorney General "from presently and henceforth enforcing Public Act 266 of 1952" because, it is asserted, various Circuit Court Judges of Michigan have discriminated in favor of white persons found guilty of violation of the Narcotic Laws.
Nowhere is it claimed that the sentences imposed upon these plaintiffs were unlawful, the burden of the complaint being that various Circuit Judges have been engaging in discriminatory practices in favor of certain white persons found guilty of the same offenses as those committed by these plaintiffs. It is not charged that the Governor of Michigan or his Attorney General has in the past engaged in any such alleged discriminatory practices. It is not charged that the Governor of Michigan or his Attorney General is about to, or has threatened to, make discriminatory use of the Statute under which these plaintiffs were sentenced. It is obvious that neither the Governor of Michigan nor the Attorney General has in any way participated in the alleged discriminatory conduct.
This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that it would be useless and improvident for a United States District Court to attempt to enjoin the Governor of Michigan or his Attorney General from doing something which neither of them has done, and which neither of them threatens or plans to do. The imposition of sentences under the criminal statutes of Michigan is not a function of the Governor of Michigan or of the Attorney General. The persons who imposed these sentences upon these plaintiffs, to wit: various Circuit Judges, and the person who now has custody of these plaintiffs, to wit: the Warden of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, are not before this Court.
This recital, however, should not be construed as indicating that were these last named persons parties to these proceedings, their conduct would be subject to this Court's injunction or that this Court would have any power, under the guise of an injunction, to change the sentences imposed upon these plaintiffs or to order their release from prison.
It is observed, also, that these plaintiffs do not claim to have sought relief in the State Courts of Michigan from the injustice they now aver.
The plaintiffs rely on Section 2281 et seq., Title 28 United States Code Annotated, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindauer v. Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority
...v. Freeman, 217 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C.1963) ; Voege v. Am. Sumatra Tobacco Corp., 192 F. Supp. 689 (D.Del.1961) ; Bunce v. Williams, 159 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.Mich.1958). ...
-
Native American Church of Navajoland, Inc v. Arizona Corporation Commission
...Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U.S. 386, 54 S.Ct. 732, 78 L.Ed. 1318; Arneson v. Denny, D.C., 25 F.2d 988; Bunce v. Williams, D.C., 159 F.Supp. 325. Appellants' failure to come under § 2281 might appear to rest on a view of pleading at a variance with the liberal notions wh......
-
Christian v. United States
...Judge need go no further. Powell v. Workmen's Compensation Board of State of New York, 214 F.Supp. 283 (D.C.N.Y.) 1963; Bunce v. Williams, 159 F.Supp. 325 (D.C.Mich.) 1958; and Farr v. O'Keefe, 27 F.Supp. 216 (D.C.Miss.) From the allegations of the Complaint, it affirmatively appears that t......