Clay v. Reid
| Decision Date | 01 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 47-59.,47-59. |
| Citation | 173 F. Supp. 667 |
| Parties | William C. CLAY, Petitioner, v. Curtis REID, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Hyman J. Cohen and Eugene Roberson, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Oscar Altshuler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
This is a writ of habeas corpus issued on a petition of counsel for an inmate of the District of Columbia Jail who is serving sentences imposed by the United States District Court at Indianapolis, Indiana, pursuant to conviction of a series of criminal offenses. These offenses were committed while the petitioner was an inmate of the Federal Reformatory at Terre Haute, Indiana. Originally, the petitioner had been committed as a juvenile by the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia to the National Training School for Boys and was from there removed to the Federal Reformatory at Chillicothe, and then to the Federal Reformatory at Terre Haute, Indiana.
It is claimed in behalf of the petitioner, first, that his transfer from the National Training School for Boys to a Federal reformatory or penitentiary was illegal, on the theory that a juvenile committed to the National Training School for Boys may not be imprisoned in an institution to which adult criminals are also committed. It is further claimed that since his imprisonment in the Indiana institution was illegal, he should not be held liable for the consequences of a crime committed while he was an inmate of that institution. The Court reaches the conclusion that each of the two contentions is erroneous.
This Court is of the opinion that the law authorizes the Director of Prisons of the United States to transfer inmates of the National Training School for Boys to any Federal institution. This matter first came before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Huff v. O'Bryant, 74 App.D.C. 19, 121 F.2d 890. In that case an inmate of the National Training School for Boys who had been committed there by the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia was transferred under the authority of the Attorney General to the District of Columbia Penitentiary and Reformatory at Lorton, because he had become unruly and difficult to handle in the opinion of the School. The Court of Appeals held that there was no authority to make the transfer. This having created a problem, the Department of Justice immediately applied to Congress for the enactment of legislation that would change this rule of law. Accordingly, Congress passed an Act which became law on October 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 743, 18 U.S.C. § 753f (1940 Code, Supp. I), and which amended the provision authorizing the Attorney General to transfer prisoners from one institution to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O-- H-- v. French
...126 (C.A.7, 1961); Suarez v. Wilkinson, 133 F.Supp. 38 (D.C.Penn., 1955); Arkadiele v. Markley, 186 F.Supp. 586 (D.C.Ind., 1960); Clay v. Reid, 173 F.Supp. 667 (D.C.Dist. of Col., 1959); Wilson v. Coughlin, 259 Iowa 1163, 147 N.W.2d 175 (1966); Long v. Langlois, 93 R.I. 23, 170 A.2d 618 (19......
-
Wilson v. Coughlin
...196 N.E.2d 457 (1964); Trimble v. Stone, 187 F.Supp. 483 (D.C.1960); Arkadiele v. Markley, 186 F.Supp. 586 (S.D.Ind.1960); Clay v. Reid, 173 F.Supp. 667 (D.C.1959); United States v. McCoy, 150 F.Supp. 237 (M.D.Penn.1957); and Suarez v. Wilkinson, 133 F.Supp. 38 (M.D.Penn.1955). In each case......
-
Shone v. State of Maine
...Arkadiele v. Markley, 186 F.Supp. 586 (S.D.Ind.1960); Trimble v. Stone, 187 F.Supp. 483, 486 n. 2. (D.D.C.1960) (dictum); Clay v. Reid, 173 F.Supp. 667 (D.D.C.) appeal dismissed 106 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 272 F.2d 527 (1959); Suarez v. Wilkinson, 133 F.Supp. 38 (M.D.Pa.1955); People v. Scherbing......
-
Moore v. Haugh
...See e. g. Sonnenberg v. Markley, 289 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1961); Arkadiele v. Markley, 186 F.Supp. 586 (S.D.Ind.1960); Clay v. Reid, 173 F.Supp. 667 (D.D.C.1959) appeal dismissed 106 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 272 F.2d 527 (1959); Harwood v. State, 184 Tenn. 515, 201 S.W.2d 672 (1947); Wilson v. Cough......