Halprin v. United States, 68 Civ. 4376.
| Citation | 293 F. Supp. 1186 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 68 Civ. 4376.,68 Civ. 4376. |
| Parties | Stanley HALPRIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Stanley Halprin, pro se.
Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, for the United States; Ross Sandler, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
Petitioner is currently confined to the Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary following his conviction upon his plea of guilty to a narcotics violation and for conspiracy to violate the narcotics laws. He now attacks the validity of proceedings before the United States Board of Parole which resulted in the revocation of his parole. Petitioner claims that at the revocation proceeding, which was conducted at Terminal Island, Federal Correctional Institution, San Pedro, California, he was denied the right to call witnesses on his behalf and the benefit of counsel to aid him in his defense; also that he was denied a thirty-day extension to obtain such witnesses and counsel, all in alleged violation of the Board's own regulations and petitioner's constitutional rights.
Petitioner does not attack the validity of his sentence as such, but his continued detention based upon the revocation of his parole. The remedy provided in section 2255 is therefore not available to him. Stinson v. United States, 342 F.2d 507, 508 (8th Cir. 1965); Allen v. United States, 327 F.2d 58, 59 (5th Cir. 1964); In re Gillette, 175 F.Supp. 255, 257 (E.D.N.Y.1959); United States v. Howell, 103 F.Supp. 714, 718 (S.D.W. Va.), aff'd, 199 F.2d 366 (4th Cir. 1952). The absence of petitioner and his warden from this district leaves the Court without jurisdiction under section 2241. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243-244, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 220, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952); Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 192, 68 S. Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898 (1948). Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal in a court of proper jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. U.S.
...v. United States, 295 F.2d 458, 459 (9th Cir. 1951); Hartwell v. United States, supra, 353 F.Supp. at 357-58; Halprin v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1968). To allow jurisdiction under 2255 in this case would defeat its purpose in creating subject matter jurisdiction over ......
-
Candarini v. Attorney General of United States
...dismissed as petitioners, even if they have been denied due process, are not entitled to be released. See, e. g., Halprin v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y.1968). Moreover, this court is without jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S. C. § 2241 since neither the petitioners nor the Warde......
-
United States ex rel. Ostin v. WARDEN, FED. DET. HDQTRS., NY
...issued or executed by the Parole Board pursuant to its statutory authority.6 The petition is dismissed. 1 Cf. Halprin v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 2 Welch v. Taylor, 292 F.2d 481, 482 (10th Cir. 1961); Singleton v. Looney, 218 F.2d 526, 528 (10th Cir. 1955); Hick......
-
United States ex rel. Williams v. Fitzpatrick
...or service of another sentence without thereby losing jurisdiction over the convict.8 The petition is dismissed. 1 Halprin v. United States, 293 F.Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y.1968). 2 Cf. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243-244, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); United States v. Hayman, 342 U.......