Davis v. United States, Civ. A. No. 16916-3.

Decision Date30 July 1968
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 16916-3.
Citation288 F. Supp. 180
PartiesRichard Lee DAVIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Department of Justice, and United States Board of Parole, Respondents.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

Richard Lee Davis, pro se.

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

BECKER, Chief Judge.

Petitioner, presently confined in the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, petitions for 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 on July 24, 1962, he plead guilty to a charge of "armed bank robbery" in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska; that the sentence imposed was for a term of 15 years' imprisonment; that he appealed the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 358 F.2d 360; and that he was never represented by counsel.

At the time petitioner filed the petition herein, he was in custody of the United States and confined in the Jackson County Jail, Kansas City, Missouri, as a result of the execution of a warrant for arrest of petitioner for allegedly violating the terms and conditions of his parole from the bank robbery conviction and sentence.

The gist of petitioner's complaint is that he was "falsely charged" with violating the terms and conditions of his parole; that he "did not steal car nor tamper with car as charged" (sic); that he "did not refuse to submit written monthly reports" and that his presence was known to his parole board; that he has been unable to obtain possession of his legal papers which are in the Kansas City, Kansas Y.M.C.A.; and that he has been unable to obtain a hearing on his alleged parole violation.

From the files and records in this case, it appears that the petitioner was transferred from the Jackson County Jail, Kansas City, Missouri, to the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, on June 3, 1968. Further, it appears that petitioner had a parole revocation hearing on July 11, 1968.

Section 4207, Title 18, U.S.C., provides, in part, the following:

"A prisoner retaken upon a warrant issued by the Board of Parole, shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Board, a member thereof, or an examiner designated by the Board."

The quoted portion of Section 4207 provides an alleged parole violator with procedural safeguards so that his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States ex rel. Carioscia v. Meisner, 71 C 906
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • September 10, 1971
    ...1965), cert. denied 382 U.S. 851, 86 S.Ct. 100, 15 L.Ed.2d 90; Wright v. Settle, 293 F.2d 317, 319 (8th Cir. 1961); Davis v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 180, 181 (W.D.Mo.1968); Young v. Parker, 256 F.Supp. 1002, 1004 (M.D.Pa.1966). We believe that this rule applies equally to a mandatory rel......
  • Nuccio v. Heyd
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • May 19, 1969
    ...for the Board of Parole in the first instance to determine if cause exists for revocation of petitioner's parole." Davis v. United States, W.D.Mo.,1968, 288 F. Supp. 180, 181. Before Nuccio can assert that the Louisiana conditions of parole violate rights guaranteed to him under the Due Pro......
  • United States ex rel. Carson v. Taylor, 75 Civ. 4398.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 4, 1975
    ...1975. In the circumstances the court concluded that there was no immediate occasion to consider habeas relief, see Davis v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 180 (W.D.Mo.1968), and declined to sign the order. As will appear below, the delay of the hearing has never been acceptably The revocation h......
  • United States ex rel. Chiarello v. Mancusi, 67 Civ. 268.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 21, 1968

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