Burns v. Welch
| Citation | 159 F.2d 29 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9258.,9258. |
| Parties | BURNS v. WELCH. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Howard C. Westwood, of Washton, D. C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.
Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, George E. McNeil, United States Attorney at the time the supplemental brief was filed, and Joseph F. Lawless, Assistant United States Attorney, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
James B. Burns, an inmate of the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia, tendered to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he named as respondent Edward J. Welch, the superintendent of the institution. The District Court permitted the petition to be filed and, without a hearing and without issuing a rule to show cause, at once dismissed it as lacking in merit. An appeal in forma pauperis was permitted and we appointed counsel for the petitioner to insure adequate representation.
We have held1 that petitions for habeas corpus by inmates of the District Workhouse at Occoquan, Virginia, are within the jurisdiction of the local United States District Court, for the reason that the Workhouse belongs to and is managed by the District of Columbia. Problems concerning local institutions, such as the Workhouse, and its inmates, are local problems, sui generis, and outside the usual federal procedure in regard to such matters. Accordingly, it may be regarded as settled that the local court has jurisdiction of habeas corpus proceedings filed by inmates of the Workhouse, despite the fact that the institution is not within the District of Columbia. The same considerations apply with respect to the District of Columbia Reformatory at Lorton, Virginia.
It will be observed, however, that in Sanders v. Allen,2 we based our holding that the District Court here has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus at the petition of a prisoner in the Workhouse at Occoquan, Virginia, upon the fact that the petitioner was under the control of an official of the District who was personally within the District and within the jurisdiction of the court. We said, "* * * we are of opinion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. State of Louisiana
...reason would be without prejudice to West's right to submit a petition naming the correct respondent. See, e. g., Burns v. Welch, 1947, 81 U.S.App.D. C. 384, 159 F.2d 29. Thus West would once more have to labor up the judicial ladder, and the judiciary would once more have to consider his c......
-
Ahrens v. Clark
...135 F. 378; Sanders v. Allen, 69 App.D.C. 307, 100 F.2d 717. See Tippitt v. Wood, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 140 F.2d 689; Burns v. Welch, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 159 F.2d 29. 18 Of the cases cited in note 17 only McGowan v. Moody and In re Bickley are in accord with today's decision. And even those......
-
McCall v. Swain
...the District but operated under the supervisory control of the District's Department of Corrections. See, e.g., Burns v. Welch, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 385, 159 F.2d 29, 30 (1947) (inmate at Lorton Reformatory) (dictim); 15 Sanders v. Bennett, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 32, 33, 148 F.2d 19, 20 (1945) ('S......
-
Duncan v. State of Maine, Civ. No. 7-4.
......Clark, supra. See Burns v. Wilson, 1953, 346 U.S. 137, 844, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508; Id., 346 U.S. 844, 74 195 F. Supp. 201 S.Ct. 3, 98 L.Ed. 363. Opinion of er, J. Burns v. Welch, D.C.Cir.1947, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 384, 159 F.2d 29, also relied on by petitioner, has been overruled by Ahrens v. Clark, supra. McAffee v. Clemmer, ......