Forward v. GERNERT

Decision Date08 May 1968
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 68-668.
Citation287 F. Supp. 680
PartiesRichard FORWARD, Applicant, v. Paul J. GERNERT, Respondent, Penna. Board of Parole et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Richard Forward, in pro. per.

Welsh S. White, Asst. Dist. Atty. for the County of Philadelphia, Pa., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BODY, District Judge.

Richard Forward has applied to this Court for injunctive relief against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. He claims that the Board has erroneously and arbitrarily computed the sentence which he is now serving.

We do not believe that Forward's application has raised any questions of constitutional proportion. Thus he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-3, or under any habeas corpus theory of relief. His application to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied.

Additionally, a letter to the Court from the Board of Probation and Parole explaining the computation of Forward's sentence appears to indicate that Forward simply misunderstands the basis of his sentence. A copy of this letter is attached to this memorandum and will be forwarded to applicant Forward.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • AMERICAN TUBE AND CONTROLS, INC. v. General Fittings Co., Civ. A. No. 3697.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • June 28, 1968
    ... ...         The three remaining claims of plaintiff's patent, Claims 2, 3 and 4, carry forward the basic "ring and rib" structure of Claim 1, but in addition present two additional features not taught by Mills, viz: a thickened bead on the ... ...

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