Derengowski v. US Marshal, Minneapolis Office, Minn. Div.
Decision Date | 22 May 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 18600.,18600. |
Citation | 377 F.2d 223 |
Parties | Norbert DERENGOWSKI, Appellant, v. The U. S. MARSHAL, MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE, MINNESOTA DIVISION, and the State of Illinois, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Norbert Derengowski, pro se.
Patrick J. Foley, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., and William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before VOGEL, Chief Judge, and GIBSON and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Norbert Derengowski, appeals from the denial by the District Court of his motion under § 2255, 28 U.S. C.A.
On December 28, 1964, appellant was sentenced in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County, Illinois, to a term of five to twenty-five years for the crime of armed robbery and after diagnostic processing he was ultimately transferred on January 22, 1965, to the Illinois State Penitentiary, Stateville Branch, Joliet, Illinois.
On June 10, 1966, in compliance with a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, appellant was released temporarily from the custody of the warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary into the custody of the United States Marshal for Minnesota for purposes of arraignment and further proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The writ provided that upon the conclusion of such proceedings appellant was to be returned to the Illinois State Penitentiary.
On September 16, 1966, at the conclusion of the Minnesota proceedings, appellant filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, claiming primarily that (1) his removal to Minnesota on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum violated his constitutional rights and (2) Illinois' relinquishment of custody over appellant in compliance with the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum constituted a complete release by Illinois of all jurisdiction over appellant. Appellant's contentions are without merit.
It is a well-established legal rule that a state prisoner is without standing to contest a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. See, Barrett v. United States, 8 Cir., 1959, 270 F.2d 772, 776 ( ); United States ex rel. Moses v. Kipp, 7 Cir., 1956, 232 F.2d 147, 150 ( ); Stamphill v. Johnston, 9 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 291, 292, certiorari denied, 320 U.S. 766, 64 S.Ct. 70, 88 L.Ed. 457 ( ). The exercise of jurisdiction over a prisoner who has violated the law of more than one sovereignty and the priority of prosecution of the prisoner is solely a question of comity between the sovereignties which is not subject to attack by the prisoner. As Mr. Chief Justice Taft originally stated in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 1922, 258 U.S. 254, at page 260, 42 S.Ct. 309, at page 310, 66 L.Ed. 607:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeMaria v. Jones
...458 (10th Cir., 1965). Nor does he have standing to challenge the selection of the prosecuting sovereignty. Derengowski v. United States Marshal, 377 F.2d 223 (8th Cir., 1967). Petitioners contend that the choice was nevertheless presented to them for coercive leverage, and that they are th......
-
Bowman v. Wilson
...is solely a question of comity between the sovereignties which is not subject to attack by the prisoner." Derengowski v. United States Marshal, 377 F.2d 223, 224 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 144, 19 L.Ed.2d 180 (1967). He has no standing to raise the issue. Id. at 223-24......
-
United States v. Pleau
...154 L.Ed.2d 848 (2003); Weathers v. Henderson, 480 F.2d 559, 559–60 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam); Derengowski v. U.S. Marshal, Minneapolis Office, Minn. Div., 377 F.2d 223, 223–24 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 144, 19 L.Ed.2d 180 (1967); United States v. Horton, No. 95–5880......
-
State ex rel. Graves v. Williams
...Mississippi, 404 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1968); Commonwealth v. Haas, 428 Pa. 167, 236 A.2d 810 (1968); Derengowski v. U. S. Marshal, Minneapolis Office, Minn. Div., 377 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 144, 19 L.Ed.2d 180 (1967); Parsons v. Grimes, 220 Ga. 231, 138 S.E......