Cagle v. Ciccone
Decision Date | 03 September 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 17024-3. |
Citation | 289 F. Supp. 857 |
Parties | William J. CAGLE, Petitioner, v. Dr. P. J. CICCONE, Director, United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
William J. Cagle, pro se.
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a federal convict confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri, seeks a writ of federal habeas corpus and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Petitioner states that he was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with "second degree murder"; that that court sentenced him to a term of "ten years to life"; that he appealed the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which affirmed the trial court; that he has filed previous petitions for habeas corpus and motions under Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C., all of which have been denied; and that he was represented by counsel at his arraignment, plea, trial, sentencing, and on appeal.
The petitioner states that the grounds for the petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus are as follows:
There is no claim in the petition herein of circumstances of cruel and unusual punishment requiring emergency relief.
The proper method of presenting complaints about an inmate's place of confinement, his treatment, and the unlawful denial of an inmate's liberties and rights which he retains even though confined is to file a petition for writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walters v. Henderson, Civ. A. No. 17462.
...corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1970). Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed. 2d 418 (1971); Cagle v. Ciccone, 289 F.Supp. 857 (W.D.Mo.1968). See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 Of course petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks onl......
- CREDITO E INVERSIONES DE SAN MIGUEL, INC. v. BF Goodrich Co.
-
Winford v. Wilkinson
...institution may test the legality of his confinement within a particular place inside the institution. See also Cagle v. Ciccone, W.D.Mo.1968, No. 17024-3, 289 F.Supp. 857. It is therefore not unlikely that the courts of Missouri would, in a proper case, exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction ......