Floyd v. Henderson, 72-1124 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 17 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1124 Summary Calendar.,72-1124 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1117 |
| Parties | Franklin Delano FLOYD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. D. HENDERSON, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Franklin Delano Floyd, pro se.
John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., Anthony M. Arnold, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court appended, the order appealed from is affirmed.
APPENDIX
United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division Franklin Delano Floyd Civil Action Number 15960 versus J. D. Henderson, Warden United States Penitentiary Filed: Dec. 9, 1971
Petitioner, a federal prisoner in Atlanta, seeks habeas corpus relief. Specifically, he contends that when the Attorney General transferred him to a state prison for concurrent service of state and federal sentences, the federal government waived its jurisdiction over him and, therefore, although time remains to be served on his federal sentence, he should be set free since the state has now released him on parole.
The petition is meritless. Under 18 U.S.C. § 4082, the Attorney General has the power to designate the place of a federal prisoner's confinement in a state or federal prison, and this authority is sufficient to permit the transfer of petitioner from one institution to another prison. See Lipscomb v. Stevens, 349 F.2d 997, 1000-1001 (6th Cir. 1965). Since he was serving both his state and federal sentences at the state prison, the federal government has never lost jurisdiction over petitioner. Furthermore even if the federal government had lost jurisdiction over petitioner when he was transferred to the state prison, he could not complain about being returned to federal prison, because the question of jurisdiction and custody over a prisoner is one of comity between governments and not a personal right of the prisoner. See Jones v. Taylor, 327 F.2d 493 (10th Cir. 1964).
Petitioner contends that certain Bureau of Prisons policies were not followed during the transfer. These policy statements are rules of practice and do not rise to the status of law. Thus, a transfer that was otherwise lawful would not become unlawful merely because a prison policy was not strictly followed.
There is no evidence that the transfer of petitioner to state prison was arbitrary or capricious. Although he has tried to convince the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omar v. Harvey, 06-5126.
...decisions of sovereigns acting jointly within the same territory is unprecedented," Dissenting Op. at 19-20, citing only Floyd v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir.1972), in support. In Floyd, a federal prisoner argued that the federal government could no longer exercise jurisdiction over h......
-
Persico v. Gunnell
...589 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Beck v. Hanberry, 444 U.S. 845, 100 S.Ct. 90, 62 L.Ed.2d 58 (1979); and Floyd v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 1117, App. at 1119 (5th Cir.1972). 18 U.S.C. § 4082(b) empowers the Attorney General to transfer a prisoner for whatever reason or for no ......
-
United States ex rel. Gereau v. Henderson
...Estelle, N.D.Tex., 1974, 371 F.Supp. 951, aff'd, 5 Cir., 1974, 503 F.2d 1401 (transfers from local to state facilities); Floyd v. Henderson, 5 Cir., 1972, 456 F.2d 1117 (transfer turned consecutive state and federal sentences into concurrent sentences); Bloeth v. Montanye, 2 Cir., 1975, 514......
-
Tavarez v. U.S. Atty. Gen.
...lose its power to keep a convict in custody by turning the convict over to another sovereign for service of a sentence. Floyd v. Henderson, 456 F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1972) (federal government did not waive its power to resume custody over convict for completion of federal sentence by transfer......