Feilke v. Governor, State of NJ, Civ. A. No. 75-486.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-486. |
| Citation | 414 F. Supp. 10 |
| Parties | William FEILKE, Prisoner, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania v. GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
William Feilke, pro se.
None for defendants.
Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis with his "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief." From the petition, it appears that the plaintiff seeks to challenge the procedures utilized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in processing detainer warrants which have been lodged against Pennsylvania prisoners. It appears that a detainer warrant was lodged against the plaintiff by the State of New Jersey during the latter part of 1974, and it further appears that this outstanding detainer is still a part of the inmate's institutional record. Plaintiff contends that his constitutional rights have been violated because he has never received official notice of the detainer warrant, and has never been afforded an opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of the warrant.
Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Simply stated, it is a well-settled principle of law that a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to receive notice of, and participate in, extradition proceedings. U. S. ex rel. Fort v. Meiszner, 319 F.Supp. 693 (N.D.Ill.1970). My research has failed to disclose a single case in which a court has held that extradition proceedings are subject to judicial review on constitutional grounds. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of a criminal defendant's constitutional rights when a prosecuting state bypasses the asylum state's extradition procedures by "forcibly abducting" the criminal defendant from the asylum state. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952). Since it appears that there has been no violation of plaintiff's constitutionally protected rights, this Court is without jurisdiction to grant the declaratory and injunctive relief requested.
However, since the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court directs his attention to the provisions of § 10 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Extradition Act, 19 P.S. 191.10, which provides that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowman v. Wilson
...States Army. A constitutional right to a hearing prior to transfer may not exist in these circumstances, Feilke v. Governor, State of New Jersey, 414 F.Supp. 10 (E.D. Pa.1976), but given our disposition of this matter, it is unnecessary explicitly to reach this constitutional question and w......
-
Com. ex rel. Coleman v. Cuyler
...reason or authority, and need only be stated to be rejected as unsound." 215 U.S. at 68, 30 S.Ct. at 33. In Feilke v. Governor, State of New Jersey, 414 F.Supp. 10 (E.D.Pa.1976), a detainer had been lodged against a prisoner by the state of New Jersey, and the prisoner had never been notifi......
-
Adams v. Cuyler
...is well settled that there is no constitutional right to any procedure to challenge an extradition. See e. g., Feilke v. Governor of New Jersey, 414 F.Supp. 10 (E.D.Pa. 1976). The civil rights statutes do not provide a remedy for an individual who is involuntarily transferred interstate in ......
-
Com. v. Jacobs
...637, 639 (1974); Commonwealth v. Bell, 222 Pa.Super. 190, 194, 293 A.2d 74, 76 (1972). See also: Feilke v. Governor, State of New Jersey, 414 F.Supp. 10, 11 (E.D.Pa.1976); Ex Parte Chapman, 601 S.W.2d 380, 382-383 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). The procedural safeguards guaranteed to a person whose ext......