Hamrick v. Hazelet, 46348
| Citation | 209 Kan. 383,497 P.2d 273 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46348,46348 |
| Parties | Arthur L. HAMRICK, Appellant, v. John C. HAZELET, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In an action in habeas corpus alleging mistreatment of an inmate of a penal institution the record on appeal is examined and for reasons stated in the opinion the judgment of the district court summarily denying relief and dismissing the petition is reversed with directions to afford appellant an evidentiary hearing.
Maurice P. O'Keefe, Jr., Atchison, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Patrick J. Reardon, County Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., and John A. Price, Sp. Prosecutor, were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court summarily dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the appellant Arthur L. Hamrick, an inmate at the Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas. The respondent named in the petition is the warden of the penitentiary. The proceedings were instituted on May 22, 1970, by the pro se filing of a handwritten instrument designated as a 'Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501.'
In his petition the appellant complains that he has been placed in protective custody for a period of two years without benefit of working, or exercising, or other privileges that would contribute to his morale or rehabilitation. He further alleged that he has been denied adequate medical attention. Appellant describes with particularity that he has a crushed bone located in his nose which obstructs the nasal passages making breathing very difficult and painful and that the same has been in need of surgery which the institution has failed to provide. Appellant further complains in his petition that while confined in the Adjustment and Treatment Building (A & T) he had been denied personal cleanliness; work programs; education and training; adequate food; and access to the inmate canteen, library privileges, handicraft programs, athletics, motion pictures, television, radio and religious services. Appellant further complains that he is only allowed one three-minute shower a week and furthermore that the warden, in violation of statutory standards, has failed to provide adequate food, light and heat, recreation facilities, sanitation facilities, medical attention, and an adequate guard system causing danger of beatings, sexual attacks and other types of intimidation. He alleges that these conditions just described constitute cruel and unusual punishment and that the respondent has arbitrarily and capriciously refused to repond to appellant's request for relief.
On the same day the petition was filed the trial court summarily dismissed the petition without affording the appellant an opportunity to appear and present evidence thereon. On June, 10, 1970, appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Kort
...v. Cardwell, 457 F.2d 34 (6th Cir.1972); In re Davis, 25 Cal.3d 384, 599 P.2d 690, 158 Cal.Rptr. 384 (1979); Hamrick v. Hazelet, 209 Kan. 383, 497 P.2d 273 (1972); McIntosh v. Haynes, 545 S.W.2d 647 (Mo.1977); Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or. 115, 545 P.2d 861 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hendrick, 444 P......
-
Beaver v. Chaffee
...nature alleged by an inmate of a penal institution." (Syl. 3. Emphasis added.) See, also, the companion case of Hamrick v. Hazelet, 209 Kan. 383, 497 P.2d 273 (1972). In neither case did the court hold that habeas corpus was the exclusive remedy, but only that the form of action was broad e......
-
Ziegler v. Miliken, 15533
...425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) wherein the court reaffirmed its rulings in Wolff v. McDonnell.11 Hamrick v. Hazelet, 209 Kan. 383, 497 P.2d 273 (1972); Bekins v. Cupp, Ore., 545 P.2d 861 (1976); Calkins v. May, 97 Idaho 402, 545 P.2d 1008 ...
-
Foster v. Maynard
...their accounts with the forced savings is a "condition of confinement" properly cognizable in a habeas corpus action. Hamrick v. Hazelet, 209 Kan. 383, 497 P.2d 273. They also contend that to require a separate action on the forced savings issue would cause unnecessary duplicity. In support......